The European Commission says Sweden is infringing EU law on cosmetic products (Directive 76/768/EEC and its amendments) by imposing excessive requirements in the notification process.
“The Cosmetics Directive establishes rules to be complied with by any cosmetic product made available on the market, in order to ensure the functioning of the internal market and a high level of protection of human health. The directive provides exhaustively for the harmonisation of national rules on the placing on the market of cosmetics including their packaging and labelling. Member States may not adopt national rules that exceed these requirements in this respect,” the Commission explains.
Actually, the current Swedish law on cosmetics and hygiene products contains several requirements that go beyond what is required by the Cosmetics Directive, including:
notification of products already notified in another Member State;
more information than required for market surveillance purposes which is limited to the address of the place of manufacture of the cosmetic products, or of their initial importation into the Community.
According to the Commission, Sweden’s stringent requirements may hinder the functioning of the European internal market. Therefore, the sending of the Commission’s Reasoned Opinion is the final stage before launching a legal action. Should Sweden decide to ignore the Commission’s opinion, the case would be referred to the European Court of Justice.
Excessive requirements introduced into national laws during the transposition process of European rules are a frequent source of litigation against EU Member States. Slighter legal variations from one country to another are also regarded a source of unnecessary complexity. To address the issues, the European Union voted a new Cosmetic Products Regulation, (EU Regulation 1223/2009), that will replace the current Cosmetics Directive from 11 July 2013. The provisions of this new regulation will be directly applicable and will not required to be transposed into Member States’ laws thus limiting risks of infringement.