UNAF v. Minister of Agriculture Reference : 233876 Complaint date : April 30, 2001 Status : Final judgment Place of jurisdiction : France, Paris Plaintiffs types : Beekeepers/Honey Producers Plaintiffs names : Union Nationale de l’Apiculture Francaise (UNAF) Defendants : Bayer, Ministère de l'Alimentation, de l'Agriculture et de la Pêche Lawyers for Health and Environmental Justice : No description Case nature : Administrative Type(s), Product(s), Active substance(s) : , Neonicotinoid, Gaucho, Imidacloprid Requests : Cancel the decision to reject the request to withdraw the marketing authorization of insecticide Gaucho for all its applications; Cancel the marketing authorization under imposition of 100 000 F per day of delay; Condemn the State to pay 25.000 F to UNAF Name of the Court : Council of State of Paris, France Jurisdiction level : Decision date : October 9, 2002 Decision nature : Partially Positive Decision content : The Council of State cancels the implicit decision by which the Minister of Agriculture rejected UNAF's request to repeal its decision authorizing the sale of the insecticide Gaucho for the treatment of corn seeds, enjoins the Minister to decide, within three months, on the request for repeal and the State to pay 3,000€ to UNAF. The remainder of UNAF's conclusions are rejected. Legal basis : Court Ruling : Link to the ruling Summary : Following the implicit decision of the Ministry of Agriculture to reject UNAF's request to cancel the marketing authorization of neonicotinoid insecticide Gaucho for all its applications in Oct. 2000, the latter brought the matter before the Paris Administrative Court on April 30, 2001, which referred it to the Conseil d'Etat on May 9, 2001. The Conseil d'Etat ordered the cancellation of the implicit decision by which the Minister of Agriculture had rejected UNAF's request for the repeal of its decision of 02/06/1992 allowing the selling of the insecticide Gaucho for the treatment of maize seeds, and the Minister of Agriculture to decide, within three months, on the request for repeal mentioned in the previous article. Scientific references : No scientifice reference for this case. Related links : No related link for this case.