One Voice & ECEAE satisfied with EU court ruling in landmark cosmetics testing case

Wednesday 21^st September

One Voice and the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments (ECEAE) have welcomed a decision made today by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to reject an argument by the European Federation for Cosmetics Ingredients (EFCI). This would have enabled companies to evade the cosmetics animal testing and sale bans by testing on animals under other European or overseas legislation, before using the data to access the EU cosmetics market. The organisations are now urging national regulators to ensure the ruling is enforced effectively across the EU.

The case was brought last year by EFCI, which represents most cosmetics ingredients manufacturers in Europe [1]. The Federation, backed by the French Government, argued that cosmetics companies should be able to sell in the EU cosmetics containing ingredients tested on animals - as long as the tests were nominally carried out under some legislation other than the EU Cosmetics Regulation.

However, the CJEU has today agreed with an advisory ruling by the Advocate-General in March 2016 proposing that the Court reject the industry's argument and find that a company cannot rely on animal test data, wherever generated and for whatever purpose, to support the safety of a cosmetics product [2]. The Court also rejected arguments by the UK Government and the European Commission which would also have significantly weakened the animal test bans.

In December 2015 Cruelty Free International, along with the ECEAE, the coalition of animal protection groups it leads, presented arguments at the Court against the cosmetics industry's attempts to water down the historic ban on cosmetics testing. The ECJ has today make it harder for companies to sell cosmetics in the UK and EU if they have been animal tested elsewhere in the world [3].

Michelle Thew, Chief Executive of Cruelty Free International and ECEAE said: "We are very pleased that EFCI's attempt to circumnavigate the ban has today been roundly rejected by the Court. This is a victory both for common sense, and for the public who passionately back the landmark animal testing ban. We urge national regulators to stay vigilant and ensure that the cosmetics ban is upheld to prevent the suffering and death of animals, as the Court has signalled."

Muriel Arnal, president of One Voice , declared: "This attempt by the EFfCI once again demonstrates the importance of remaining vigilant, even more so in France where the government has again clearly revealed its position. The decision taken by the court is a genuine ethical victory. Animal suffering doesn't mean a lot to certain manufacturers, irrespective of scientific advances. Today real justice has been upheld, and it's a good omen for the future."

Companies have previously sought to use animal testing under other EU legislation, such as the chemical safety programme REACH, to help market cosmetics in the EU, undermining the spirit of the cosmetic testing ban. EFCI attempted to narrow the ban only to apply to cases where the animal testing was specifically carried out with the Cosmetics Regulation in mind (which would be virtually no tests).

NOTES TO EDITOR
[1] The case was brought by the European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients (EFCI), technically against the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills in the UK. The case was referred to the European Court of Justice by the High Court in London and affects the interpretation throughout the European Union. Cruelty Free International and the ECEAE were the only NGOs accepted as official participants in the case. The recommendations of the Advocate General are not binding on the Court, but are accepted in the majority of cases.
[2] http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=183602&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=641808
[3] Whether to continue the cosmetics animal testing and marketing bans post-Brexit will be one of many questions facing the UK Government. For the moment the UK is bound by this ruling.