Changes between two versions
What changed between the draft committee report and the plenary report
From · draft committee report· 28 Oct 2024
on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the re-attribution of scientific and technical tasks to the European Chemicals Agency
To · plenary report· 25 Feb 2025
on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the re-attribution of scientific and technical tasks to the European Chemicals Agency
AI:What changed, in short
Shortens the transitional period from 24 to 18 months and adds a 36-month review cycle for restricted substances.1 Adds requirements for application completeness, public disclosure of opinions, and renewal deadlines for exemptions.1 Introduces mandatory consultation of member state experts before delegated acts and monitoring of ECHA resources.1 The other changes are formal: updated recitals and cross-references.1
1 change of substance · 0 formal · 0 of wording only
Written by AI from the two texts only · read the changes before relying on it · 4 Sept 2026 · Report a problem
+34 added · −5 removed · 1 changed paragraphs, packaging included.
Part 2 of 2: EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
6 unchanged paragraphs
In general, the Rapporteur considers that ECHA needs a Basic Regulation to ensure it is fit for the future and can deliver EU goals and ambitions on chemical safety, protecting health and the environment and supporting competitiveness. To ensure simplification and flexibility, the basic regulation should provide ECHA with the possibility to have one single budget line for its EU contribution and the possibility to build up a reserve fund from fees.
The Rapporteur considers that the reattribution of scientific and technical tasks will have a significant impact on ECHA. A restructuring of the work of the Agency will be necessary to ensure that its Committees can cope with the increased workload without compromising the quality, punctuality and the timeliness of their work.
In this context, new structures – committees or working groups – are likely to be considered in order the Agency to cope effectively with the new tasks. In addition, the reinforcement of the existing ones (the Risk Assessment Committee and the Committee for Socio-Economic Analysis) is needed.
Beyond the need for additional budget and staffing, the setup as well as the organisation of the work need to be considered. With no clarity on the future structure of the Agency’s scientific committees it is impossible to conclude on whether the proposed resources will be sufficient for the Agency to manage the increased workload.
The adoption of a proposal for an ECHA Basic Regulation is very important, as it will allow the Agency to smoothly and efficiently integrate the new tasks.
In this regards, the Rapporteur proposes a longer transitional period than the current 12 months set out in the legal proposal. This is particularly important since no financial and human resources are currently planned to be provided to ECHA until the legal text is adopted and enters into force.