APE et al v. Ministry of Environment et al

461238
February 8, 2022
Provisional judgment
France, Paris

Environmental NGOs, Unions, Beekeepers/Honey Producers
Agir pour l’environnement (APE), Confédération paysanne, Fédération Nature et progrès, Fédération française des apiculteurs professionnels
Ministère de la transition écologique et solidaire (environment), Ministère de l'Alimentation, de l'Agriculture et de la Pêche
No description

Administrative
Summary proceedings
, Neonicotinoid, Thiamethoxam, Imidacloprid
To suspend the execution of the ministerial order of January 31, 2022 temporarily authorizing the use of sugar beet seeds treated with pesticides containing the neonicotinoid active substances imidacloprid or thiamethoxam and specifying the crops that may be sown, planted or replanted in the following seasons.
Council of State of Paris, France

February 25, 2022
Negative
The request of Agir pour l'environnement, Confédération paysanne, Nature et progrès federation and Fédération française des apiculteurs professionnels is rejected.

Groups challenge the order of January 30, 2022 setting the terms of provisional use of sugar beet seeds treated with pesticides containing imidacloprid and thiamethoxam neonicotinoids for the 2022 campaign. The request for summary suspension was rejected on 02/25/2022. The judge of the summary proceedings notes that the law has provided for this possibility of derogation for sugar beet crops, if certain conditions are met, particularly with regard to the risks for these crops. He considers that the use of seeds, authorized for sugar beets only, is limited to 120 days in 2022 and that it is subject to the respect of the rules governing the use of pesticides, in particular for the respect of the distances in relation to residential areas or water courses. It also considers that it results from the investigation and in particular from the exchanges during the public hearing that the risk of a new massive infestation by aphids carrying beet diseases in the spring of 2022 is serious and that there are not yet, at this stage, despite the research in progress, sufficiently effective alternative solutions to avoid the serious damage suffered in 2020 by these crops. Obviously, the Anses study, quoted by the plaintiffs, which underlines the existence of several possible alternative solutions is thus set aside by the Council of State.