Union des industries de la protection des plantes v Premier ministre and Others.
| Jurisdiction | European Union |
| Court | Court of Justice (European Union) |
| ECLI | ECLI:EU:C:2020:803 |
| Date | 08 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | C-514/19 |
Provisional text
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)
8 October 2020 (*)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 – Placing of plant protection products on the market – Emergency measures – Officially informing the European Commission – Directive (EU) 2015/1535 – Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations – Neonicotinoids – Protection of bees – Principle of sincere cooperation)
In Case C‑514/19,
REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Conseil d’État (France), made by decision of 28 June 2019, received at the Court on 8 July 2019, in the proceedings
Union des industries de la protection des plantes
v
Premier Ministre,
Ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire,
Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé,
Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation,
Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail,
interveners:
Association Générations futures,
Union nationale de l’apiculture française (UNAF),
Syndicat national de l’apiculture,
THE COURT (First Chamber),
composed of J.-C. Bonichot, President of the Chamber, L. Bay Larsen (Rapporteur), C. Toader, M. Safjan and N. Jääskinen, Judges,
Advocate General: J. Kokott,
Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,
having regard to the written procedure,
after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
– the Union des industries de la protection des plantes, by J.-P. Chevallier, avocat,
– the Union nationale de l’apiculture française (UNAF), by B. Fau, avocat,
– the Syndicat national de l’apiculture, by F. Lafforgue and H. Baron, avocats,
– the French Government, by A.-L. Desjonquères and E. Leclerc, acting as Agents,
– the European Commission, by F. Castilla Contreras, M. Jáuregui Gómez, A. Dawes and I. Naglis, acting as Agents,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 4 June 2020,
gives the following
Judgment
1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 5 of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services (OJ 2015 L 241, p. 1), and of Articles 69 and 71 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).
2 The request has been made in proceedings between the Union des industries de la protection des plantes (Crop Protection Association, ‘the UIPP’)), on the one hand, and the Premier ministre (Prime Minister), the ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire (Minister for Ecological and Inclusive Transition), the ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé (Minister for Solidarity and Health), the ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation (Minister for Agriculture and Food) and the Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail (France) (National Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health Safety), on the other, concerning the prohibition of the use of plant protection products containing one or more active substances of the neonicotinoid family and seeds treated with those products.
Legal context
European Union law
3 Article 5(1) and (2) of Directive 2015/1535 provides:
‘1. Subject to Article 7, Member States shall immediately communicate to the Commission any draft technical regulation …; they shall also let the Commission have a statement of the grounds which make the enactment of such a technical regulation necessary, where those grounds have not already been made clear in the draft.
…
Where, in particular, the draft technical regulation seeks to limit the marketing or use of a chemical substance, preparation or product on grounds of public health or of the protection of consumers or the environment, Member States shall also forward either a summary or the references of all relevant data relating to the substance, preparation or product concerned and to known and available substitutes, where such information may be available, and communicate the anticipated effects of the measure on public health and the protection of the consumer and the environment, together with an analysis of the risk …
The Commission shall immediately notify the other Member States of the draft technical regulation and all documents which have been forwarded to it …
…
2. The Commission and the Member States may make comments to the Member State which has forwarded a draft technical regulation; that Member State shall take such comments into account as far as possible in the subsequent preparation of the technical regulation.’
4 Article 6 of that directive provides:
‘1. Member States shall postpone the adoption of a draft technical regulation for three months from the date of receipt by the Commission of the communication referred to in Article 5(1).
…
3. With the exclusion of draft rules relating to services, Member States shall postpone the adoption of a draft technical regulation for 12 months from the date of receipt by the Commission of the communication referred to in Article 5(1) of this Directive if, within three months of that date, the Commission announces its intention to propose or adopt a directive, regulation or decision on the matter in accordance with Article 288 TFEU.
4. Member States shall postpone the adoption of a draft technical regulation for 12 months from the date of receipt by the Commission of the communication referred to in Article 5(1) of this Directive if, within the three months following that date, the Commission announces its finding that the draft technical regulation concerns a matter which is covered by a proposal for a directive, regulation or decision …
…
7. Paragraphs 1 to 5 shall not apply in cases where:
(a) for urgent reasons, occasioned by serious and unforeseeable circumstances relating to the protection of public health or safety, the protection of animals or the preservation of plants, and for rules on services, also for public policy, in particular the protection of minors, a Member State is obliged to prepare technical regulations in a very short space of time in order to enact and introduce them immediately without any consultations being possible; …
…
In the communication referred to in Article 5, the Member State shall give reasons for the urgency of the measures taken. The Commission shall give its views on the communication as soon as possible. It shall take appropriate action in cases where improper use is made of this procedure. The European Parliament shall be kept informed by the Commission.’
5 Article 7(1)(c) of that directive provides:
‘Articles 5 and 6 shall not apply to those laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States or voluntary agreements by means of which Member States:
…
(c) make use of safeguard clauses provided for in binding Union acts’.
6 Recital 8 of Regulation No 1107/2009 is worded as follows:
‘The purpose of this Regulation is to ensure a high level of protection of both human and animal health and the environment and at the same time to safeguard the competitiveness of Community agriculture. …’
7 Article 21(1) of that regulation states:
‘The Commission may review the approval of an active substance at any time. It shall take into account the request of a Member State to review, in the light of new scientific and technical knowledge and monitoring data, the approval of an active substance …’
8 Article 49(2) of that regulation reads as follows:
‘Where there are substantial concerns that treated seeds as referred to in paragraph 1 are likely to constitute a serious risk to human or animal health or to the environment and that such risk cannot be contained satisfactorily by means of measures taken by the Member State(s) concerned, measures to restrict or prohibit the use and/or sale of such treated seeds shall be taken immediately in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 79(3). …’
9 Article 69 of that regulation provides:
‘Where it is clear that an approved active substance … or a plant protection product which has been authorised in accordance with this Regulation is likely to constitute a serious risk to human or animal health or the environment, and that such risk cannot be contained satisfactorily by means of measures taken by the Member State(s) concerned, measures to restrict or prohibit the use and/or sale of that substance or product shall be taken immediately in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 79(3), either at the own initiative of the Commission or at the request of a Member State. …’
10 Article 70 of Regulation No 1107/2009 states:
‘By way of derogation from Article 69, the Commission may in cases of extreme urgency provisionally adopt emergency measures after consulting the Member State or Member States concerned and informing the other Member States.
As soon as possible, and at the latest after 10 working days, those measures shall be confirmed, amended, revoked or extended in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 79(3).’
11 Article 71 of that regulation states:
‘1. Where a Member State officially informs the Commission of the need to take emergency measures, and no action has been taken in accordance with Article 69 or 70, the Member State may adopt interim protective measures. In this event, it shall immediately inform the other Member States and the Commission.
2. Within 30 working days, the Commission shall put the matter before the Committee referred to in Article 79(1) in accordance with the regulatory procedure referred to in Article 79(3) with a view to the extension, amendment or...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 8 September 2022.
...por la autorización.» 1 Lengua original: alemán. 2 Sentencia de 8 de octubre de 2020, Union des industries de la protection des plantes (C‑514/19, EU:C:2020:803). 3 Sentencia de 6 de mayo de 2021, Bayer CropScience y Bayer/Comisión (C‑499/18 P, EU:C:2021:367). 4 Reglamento (CE) n.º 1107/200......
-
Poste Italiane SpA and Agenzia delle entrate - Riscossione v Riscossione Sicilia SpA agente riscossione per la provincia di Palermo e delle altre provincie siciliane and Poste Italiane SpA.
...to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (judgment of 8 October 2020, Union des industries de la protection des plantes, C‑514/19, EU:C:2020:803, paragraph 29 and the case-law 28 In the second place, it should be borne in mind that, in the context of the procedure establishe......
-
Global Nanotechnologies AE schediasmou anaptyxis paraskevis kai emporias ylikon nanotechnologias (Glonatech) v European Research Executive Agency.
...Comisión/Estonia, C‑505/09 P, EU:C:2012:179, apartado 95, y de 8 de octubre de 2020, Union des industries de la protection des plantes, C‑514/19, EU:C:2020:803, apartado 50 y jurisprudencia 43 Cuando las instituciones, los órganos o los organismos de la Unión actúan en el marco de la ejecuc......
-
LH v PROFI CREDIT Slovakia s.r.o.
...Ireland y Schrems, C‑311/18, EU:C:2020:559, apartado 73, y de 8 de octubre de 2020, Union des industries de la protection des plantes, C‑514/19, EU:C:2020:803, apartados 28 y 39 En el caso de autos, es cierto que las dos primeras cuestiones prejudiciales planteadas por el tribunal remitente......