Overview#
Authorisation is the REACH route that targets the most hazardous substances individually. These substances move from the SVHC Candidate List onto Annex XIV. Once a substance is on that list, every continued use of it has to be specifically approved.
The aim is to phase such substances out and push industry towards safer alternatives, while still allowing controlled use where no alternative exists yet.
The sunset date#
Each Annex XIV entry carries a sunset date. After that date the substance may only be placed on the market or used if the European Commission has granted an authorisation for that specific use. Companies that want to keep using it must apply in advance and show how they control the risk, or explain why the benefit outweighs it.
Each entry also carries a latest application date, at least 18 months before the sunset date (Article 58(1)(c)(ii)). A company that applied by that date may continue the use after the sunset date until the Commission decides on its application (Article 56(1)(d)). A company that missed it has no such bridge.
Authorisation is use-specific and forward-looking. A company applies for permission for a named use, and the default after the sunset date is that the substance may not be used at all.
This is the opposite end of REACH from restriction. Authorisation works case by case through applications, while restriction simply limits or bans a substance directly. Both sit in the REACH annexes.
From application to decision#
An application goes to ECHA, and the decision comes from the Commission. Article 62(4) of the consolidated REACH text sets what the application must contain: the substance identity, the uses applied for, a chemical safety report unless one was already submitted with the registration, an analysis of alternatives, and a substitution plan where that analysis shows suitable alternatives are available. A socio-economic analysis is optional (Article 62(5)), but without one the second route below is hard to argue.
Two ways to be granted#
Article 60 gives the Commission two grounds for a grant, and the published reasons tell you which one was used.
The risk from the substance's Annex XIV properties is adequately controlled, as documented in the applicant's chemical safety report and assessed by RAC.
Not available (Article 60(3)) for carcinogens, mutagens, reproductive toxicants and Article 57(f) substances for which no threshold can be determined, nor for PBT and vPvB substances.
Used where the grant cannot be made under Article 60(2) or the route is closed. It needs both conditions: the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risk, and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies.
The Commission weighs the risk, the benefits, the analysis of alternatives and third-party contributions, taking into account the RAC and SEAC opinions.
Either way, Article 60(9) fixes what a grant must name: the holders, the substance, the uses, any conditions, the review period and any monitoring. An authorisation is therefore not a property of the substance. It is a permission for named companies to do named things until a named date.
What a grant looks like#
Three summaries published in the Official Journal on 17 September 2026, all decided on 10 September 2026, show the pattern. All three concern chromium(VI) substances, and all three give the Article 60(4) reason quoted above.
| Summary | Substance | Holder | Authorised use | Review period ends |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C/2026/4745 | Chromium trioxide | Pénzjegynyomda Zrt. (Hungary) | Functional chrome plating of intaglio printing plates for banknotes, passports and other security printing | 10 August 2033 |
| C/2026/4746 | Chromium trioxide | MTU Aero Engines AG and three MTU sites in Germany and Poland | Slurry coating of new aircraft engine components and in their maintenance, repair and overhaul | 23 January 2036 |
| C/2026/4742 | Chromic acid, dichromic acid and their oligomers | Robert Bosch Manufacturing Solutions GmbH | Electrolyte in functional chrome plating for commissioning plating machinery, supporting series production, micro-batch production of injectors and testing spare parts | 21 July 2036 |
The Bosch decision is headed "partially granting" an authorisation: the Commission granted less than was applied for. The review periods differ by grant, because Article 60(8) sets them case by case.
The grant stays valid until the Commission decides to amend or withdraw it, provided the holder submits a review report at least 18 months before the review period expires (Article 61(1)). The report must update the analysis of alternatives. Without that report in time, nothing keeps the grant alive past the end of the period.
Using an authorisation someone else holds#
Many companies that use an Annex XIV substance do not hold an authorisation themselves. They buy the substance from a supplier whose grant covers their use.
Seeing your own process in an Official Journal summary is not permission. The grant covers its holders and, through Article 56(2), their downstream users for that use. It does not cover a competitor running the same process with a substance bought elsewhere.