Can Europe change the world?
In a judgment dated 21 September 2016, the Luxembourg Court of Justice was called to rule on the issue of the application of its safety and quality standards relating to cosmetics with regard to actions taken outside the EU territory.
For some thirty years, EU law – even when it was still EC law – has set forth the integration of animal welfare as a principle in determining its policies. In terms of cosmetic products, this has been conveyed by measures aiming to prevent, wherever possible, the use of animal testing for the evaluation of the safety of cosmetic product components destined for the European market. To support this objective, Recital 45 of European Regulation number 1223/2009 […] ambitiously sets out that “The recognition, by third countries, of alternative methods developed in the Community should be encouraged. For this purpose, the Commission and the Member States should take all appropriate steps to facilitate the acceptance of these methods by the OECD. […]”
It is in order to give meaning to this Recital and to Article 18 of the Regulation in question which ensures to deter the use of animal testing that the Court has ruled that “read in the light of its context and objectives, that provision must be interpreted as meaning the results of animal tests, carried out outside the European Union in order to market cosmetic products in third countries, the results of which are used to prove the safety of those products for the purpose of their being placed on the EU market, must be regarded as having been carried out ‘in order to meet the requirements [of that regulation]”’.
The Court therefore notes that the EU may, in order to achieve the objectives that it applies, be interested in actions taken outside its territory.
Beyond this actual application to cosmetic products, we find the judgment interesting as it confirms that Europe can be ambitious and a driving force in order to enforce a change in behaviours and practices outside the EU territory. The protection of the European consumer justifies restrictions on the importation of products – and perhaps tomorrow of services – which are not carried out in compliance with our safety and quality standards.
Let’s hope that the Court, if faced with the same issue in ethical and social matters, would require the same degree of rigour.
Associated areas of specialisation: Health and social security