CRIIGEN v. ANSES

1704067, 19LY01017, 19LY01031
May 30, 2017
Final judgment
France, Lyon

Environmental NGOs
CRIIGEN
ANSES (Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety), Bayer
Corinne Lepage

Administrative
Roundup, Glyphosate, POEA, Herbicide
Annul the decision of March 6, 2017 by which ANSES authorized the marketing of Roundup Pro 360 by SAS Monsanto; Refer a question to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling on the validity of implementing regulations (EU) 2016/1056 of June 29, 2016 and 2016/1313 of August 1, 2016, both amending implementing regulation (EU) n°540/2011 as regards the conditions for approval of the active substance glyphosate.
Administrative Court of Appeals of Lyon, France

June 29, 2021
Positive
The marketing authorization decision is annulled, without the need to refer the preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

On June 29, 2021, the Lyon Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the annulment of the marketing authorization for Round Up Pro 360, issued on March 6, 2017 by ANSES, thereby rejecting the complaints filed by Bayer and ANSES against the first-instance judgment of January 15, 2019.

The Administrative Court of Appeal recalls that if an active substance of a plant protection product is approved by the Community authorities, the national authority, seized of an application for marketing authorization for such a product, has a discretionary power to determine whether there is detailed evidence to support the hypothesis of a risk of serious and irreversible damage to the environment, or of damage to the environment likely to cause serious harm to health, which would justify application of the precautionary principle, despite the remaining uncertainties as to its reality and scope in the light of current scientific knowledge.

In this case, ANSES authorized the marketing of Roundup Pro 360 as a resale product of another plant protection product of the same composition, Typhon, whose evaluations predated 2013. It therefore did not carry out a new evaluation of the preparation. However, on the date of the authorization in dispute, all the studies were of such a nature as to support the hypothesis of a risk of damage to the environment, linked to the use of glyphosate but also to the combination of glyphosate with other co-formulants in preparations, likely to cause serious harm to health, on the date of the disputed decision, and justified, despite the remaining uncertainties as to its reality and scope in the current state of scientific knowledge, the application of the precautionary principle.

ANSES therefore failed to comply with the precautionary principle set out in Article 5 of the Charter of the Environment, in the absence of an assessment procedure, and irrespective of the precautionary measures imposed.