Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2024/4971

19.8.2024

(Case T-294/24)

(C/2024/4971)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Syndicat National des Artistes Tatoueurs et des professionnels du tatouage (Étampes, France), Cyril Auville (Paris, France) (represented by: F. Di Vizio, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—primarily,

compensate the applicant in the amount of

—EUR 30 000 for financial damage (turnover and image);

—EUR 10 000 for material damage (obsolescence of materials);

—EUR 10 000 for non-pecuniary damage;

—in the alternative,

—exclude the applicability of the regulation on the ground that it is unlawful or order any appropriate measure to address its unlawful nature;

—annul the regulation on the ground that it is unlawful;

—in any event,

—order the Commission to pay costs in the amount of EUR 5 000.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action regarding Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/2081 of 14 December 2020 amending Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards substances in tattoo inks or permanent make-up, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging failure to assess the effects on health.

—The applicants claim that the reports used to cast doubt on the safety of the inks as regards health are based only on approximations and doubtful suppositions, they only mention unknown risks of cancer. Indeed, there are no epidemiological studies on which those suspicions are based or which report a large-scale cause and effect relationship between tattoos and cancer. In addition, they claim that there are no studies highlighting the existence of a causal link between tattoos and skin cancer. They also submit that there are no scientific studies characterising the migration of nanoparticles, which remain fixed in the tattoo, within the body, or their short or medium term effects.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equality.

—According to the applicants, tattoo professionals have been prohibited from using 27 pigments whereas health professionals who use the same products are not covered by the same prohibition.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the freedom to conduct a business.