The European Union's court has upheld the annulment of the classification of titanium dioxide in certain powder forms, the Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM) reports, confirming that the contested hazard classification will not return through appeal.

The decision settles, for now, a long-running fight over how the EU regulates one of the most widely used industrial chemicals. Titanium dioxide appears in paints, coatings, plastics, cosmetics and food products. Its regulatory status matters far beyond the chemical sector.

What did the court decide?

The EU court upheld an earlier annulment. The classification of titanium dioxide in certain powder forms will not stand. That means the hazard label that had attached to those powder forms under the contested classification falls away.

The deciding body is an EU court. The case concerns the classification of titanium dioxide in certain powder forms, as the RIVM headline states. The RIVM, the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, reported the outcome.

For companies in the supply chain, the practical starting point is simple. The powder-form classification that courts have now definitively declined to reinstate cannot serve as the basis for downstream obligations tied to that classification.

Why does this matter to the Netherlands?

The RIVM's involvement signals the Dutch dimension of the file. The institute advises the Dutch government on chemical safety and environmental risk. It has followed the titanium dioxide litigation closely.

Dutch manufacturers, importers and downstream users of titanium dioxide powders now have confirmation that the annulled classification stays annulled. Compliance teams should review safety data sheets and labelling against the current legal position rather than the struck-down classification.

The takeaway for Dutch practitioners: the powder-form classification of titanium dioxide no longer carries legal force, and documentation should reflect that.

What does the ruling change for practitioners?

Three practical points follow.

• Labelling. Products in the affected powder forms should not carry labelling grounded in the annulled classification.
• Safety data sheets. Suppliers should check that sheets match the current regulatory status rather than the voided rules.
• Exposure and workplace rules. Any internal procedures built on the annulled classification need a fresh legal check.

Practitioners advising chemical clients should also watch for what comes next. An annulment removes the contested measure. It does not prevent regulators from pursuing a new classification through a fresh procedure that cures the defects the courts identified.

The takeaway: the win is real but narrow, and a lawfully re-adopted classification remains a live possibility.