This master's thesis examines the administrative regulation of scientific uncertainty in
the field of chemicals within the European Union (EU). The central research problem
concerns the classification of titanium dioxide (TiO₂) as a carcinogenic substance,
which was annulled by the Court of Justice of the EU due to manifest methodological
errors. The purpose of the study is to analyze the scope of free appraisal of evidence
of specialized agencies when assessing complex scientific issues in situations where
evidence is inconsistent.
The research is based on a qualitative legal analysis of legislation (specifically the CLP
and REACH regulations) and the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU. A case
study method is applied to TiO₂, compared with the creosote case regarding the issue
of partial annulment of administrative acts. The empirical part includes semi-structured
interviews with officials from the Chemicals Office of the Republic of Slovenia (URSK)
who directly participated in harmonized classification procedures at the EU level.
The findings indicate that the free appraisal of evidence of agencies such as ECHA is
not unlimited in technocratic decision-making. In the TiO₂ case, the Court of Justice
identified a manifest error in the application of the Morrow calculation and particle
density parameters. The substantive legal standard of intrinsic properties serves as a
key safeguard, preventing classification based on effects that are merely the result of
specific experimental conditions, such as lung overload.
The work offers concrete guidelines for the application of the Weight of Evidence
(WoE) approach in the national administrative practice of URSK. The research
contributes to the development of public administration by clarifying the limits of
technocratic autonomy and the necessity of transparent uncertainty communication.
The results deepen the understanding of judicial review over scientific-technical issues
and the relationship between the precautionary principle and legal certainty.
|
