This piece addresses Case C-458/19 P before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning a substance of long-term exposure, namely bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP). The case concerned the interplay of two complex procedures of European chemical law, namely: the procedure for authorising the use of a substance listed in Annex XIV of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation); and the procedure for listing a substance in Annex XIV of the REACH Regulation on the basis of its intrinsic properties as a substance of very high concern for the risks it poses, or may pose, to human and environmental health. The significance of this judgment is that it provides a better understanding of how Article 60(4) of the REACH Regulation is interpreted in an analogous manner in relation to other provisions of the same Regulation. Whether DEHP is a question of reproductive toxicity (Article 57(c) of the REACH Regulation) or endocrine-disrupting properties (Article 57(f) of the REACH Regulation), this judgment offers insights into the limits of the CJEU’s willingness and/or ability to use a teleological approach to interpret legislation in this area. Furthermore, this work supports the possibility of applying the principle of intergenerational equity to issues related to long-term exposure such as this one.

本文涉及欧盟法院 (CJEU) 审理的 C-458/19 P 案件，涉及长期接触的物质，即邻苯二甲酸二(2-乙基己基)酯 (DEHP)。该案涉及欧洲化学法两个复杂程序的相互作用，即： 授权使用第 1907/2006 号法规 (EC) 附件 XIV 中所列物质（REACH 法规）的程序；根据其固有特性，将某种物质列入 REACH 法规附件 XIV 的程序，将其视为对人类和环境健康造成或可能造成风险高度关注的物质。该判决的意义在于，它可以更好地理解 REACH 法规第 60(4) 条如何以与同一法规其他条款类似的方式解释。无论 DEHP 是生殖毒性问题（《REACH 法规》第 57(c) 条）还是内分泌干扰特性（《REACH 法规》第 57(f) 条）问题，本判决提供了对欧盟法院意愿和/或限制的见解。能够使用目的论方法来解释该领域的立法。此外，这项工作支持将代际公平原则应用于与长期暴露相关的问题（例如本问题）的可能性。