Tattoo Artists Union and Auville Challenge EU REACH Restriction

The applicants, represented by lawyer F. Di Vizio, are seeking compensation totaling €50,000 for various damages and are challenging the validity of Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/2081. This regulation, which amended Annex XVII to the REACH Regulation (Regulation No 1907/2006), imposes strict restrictions on substances used in tattoo inks and permanent makeup, which they argue are detrimental to their profession.

Key Arguments in the Case

The case is built on three primary legal pleas:

1. Failure to Assess Health Effects: The applicants argue that the European Commission failed to conduct a thorough assessment of the health effects associated with the restricted substances. They claim that the regulation is based on speculative reports that merely suggest unknown risks of cancer without any solid epidemiological studies to support a direct cause-and-effect relationship between tattoos and cancer. Additionally, they assert that there is no scientific evidence demonstrating the migration of nanoparticles within the body or their short-to-medium-term effects.
2. Infringement of the Principle of Equality: The plaintiffs highlight what they perceive as unequal treatment under the regulation. Specifically, while tattoo artists are prohibited from using 27 pigments, healthcare professionals who use the same products are not subjected to these restrictions. This discrepancy, they argue, is a clear violation of the principle of equality.
3. Infringement of the Freedom to Conduct a Business: The applicants also contend that the regulation infringes on their fundamental right to conduct their business freely. They claim that the restrictions imposed by the regulation are disproportionate and unjustified, leading to significant financial and material losses, including the obsolescence of equipment and damage to their professional reputation.

Relief Sought

The Syndicat National des Artistes Tatoueurs and Auville are seeking €30,000 in compensation for financial damage, €10,000 for material damage, and €10,000 for non-pecuniary damage. Additionally, they are asking the court to either exclude the applicability of the regulation, declare it unlawful, or take appropriate measures to address its alleged unlawful nature. They also request that the European Commission be ordered to cover €5,000 in legal costs.

This case highlights the growing tensions between regulatory bodies and industry professionals as the EU continues to enforce stringent health and safety regulations. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the tattoo industry across Europe, potentially setting a precedent for how similar regulations are challenged and interpreted in the future.