UIPP and Bayer v. French State

Reference :

439133

Complaint date :

February 27, 2020

Status :

Final judgment

Place of jurisdiction :

France, Paris

Plaintiffs types :

Economic stakeholders

Plaintiffs names :

Union of the industries of plant protection (UIPP), Bayer

Defendants :

State

Lawyers for Health and Environmental Justice :

No description

Case nature :

Administrative

Type(s), Product(s), Active substance(s) :

, Neonicotinoid, Flupyradifuron, Sulfoxaflor

Requests :

Annul the decree of December 30, 2019, listing the active substances contained in plant protection products with identical modes of action to those of the neonicotinoid family, insofar as it aims to ban the active substances flupyradifurone and sulfoxaflor.

Name of the Court :

Council of State of Paris, France

Jurisdiction level :

Decision date :

November 15, 2022

Decision nature :

Negative

Decision content :

Decree No. 2019-1519 of December 30, 2019 listing the active substances contained in plant protection products with modes of action identical to those of the neonicotinoid family is annulled. The State will pay a sum of 3,000 euros respectively to the Union des industries de la protection des plantes and to Bayer SAS under Article L. 761-1 of the Administrative Justice Code.

Legal basis :

Court Ruling :

Link to the ruling

Summary :

UIPP and Bayer request the Council of State to annul for excess of power the decree of December 30, 2019, which extends the scope of the ban on neonicotinoids to a list of pesticides with identical modes of action, such as flupyradifurone and sulfoxaflor.

The European regulation (No. 1107/2009) provides that a Member State may ban a substance approved in the EU in case of serious risk to human or animal health or the environment that can not be controlled otherwise than by prohibition. It shall inform the other Member States and the Commission thereof by means of a communication containing a clear presentation of the elements showing, on the one hand, that these active substances are likely to constitute a serious risk to human or animal health or to the environment and, on the other hand, that this risk cannot be contained satisfactorily without the adoption, as a matter of urgency, of the measures taken by the Member State concerned (judgment C-514/19).

The French authorities, who notified the European Commission on August 3, 2018, of a draft decree listing the active substances targeted by the disputed ban, did not validly justify the health risk in light of the evidence provided. The studies were based on neonicotinoids, and not on the active substances flupyradifurone and sulfoxaflor, which only have the same mode of action.

Thus, the Council of State annulled the decree, considering that the French authorities did not have the power to adopt a general ban on the use of the active substances, flupyradifurone and sulfoxaflor, because of a defect in the demonstration of the risks of these substances, transmitted to the European Commission.

Scientific references :

No scientifice reference for this case.