Featured Articles on GMO issues
EU Commission sued (x 2) over release of GM Amflora potato
Action brought on 10 September 2010 ”” Justice & Environment v Commission
Official Journal of the European Union
Language of the case: English
Applicant: Justice & Environment (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: P. ÄŒernÃ½, lawyer)
Defendant: European Commission
Form of order sought
”” declare the contested measures (Commission Decisions 2010/135/EU and 2010/136/EU and the response of the Commission C(2010) 4632) null and void.
Pleas in law and main arguments
By means of the present application, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decisions 2010/135/EU ( 1 ) and 2010/136/EU ( 2 ) concerning the placing on the market as food and feed of a genetically modified potato product as well as of Commission Decision C(2010) 4632 rejecting the request for internal review lodged by the applicant on the basis of Title IV of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 ( 3 ).
In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law.
It claims that in adopting Decisions 2010/135/EU and 2010/136/EU the Commission infringed essential procedural requirements within the meaning of Article 263 TFEU and its obligations under Article 4 (2) of Directive 2001/18/EC ( 4 ). In the applicant’s opinion the contested Decisions violate certain general principles of EU law as: the risk assessment made by the Commission was contradictory, the Commission made incorrect interpretation of Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/18/EC, the Commission made incomplete consideration of evidence and ignored amended law. The applicant further contends that by allowing the placing on the market of a genetically modified potato product the Commission Decision 2010/136/EU also violates Regulation No 1829/2003/EC ( 5 ).
Further, the applicant submits that the Commission Decision C(2010) 4632 is unlawful as it upholds the unlawfulness of the aforementioned two contested Commission Decisions by refusing the request for internal review lodged by the applicant. Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Commission failed to comply with the principle of good administration of justice and its obligation to properly consider evidence in the administrative decision-making process since it has failed to properly consider the arguments submitted by the applicant in its request for internal review.
( 1 ) Commission Decision of 2 March 2010 concerning the placing on the market, in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of a potato product (Solanum tuberosum L. line EH92-527-1) genetically modified for enhanced content of the amylopectin component of starch (notified under document C(2010) 1193), OJ 2010 L 53, p. 11
( 2 ) Commission Decision of 2 March 2010 authorising the placing on the market of feed produced from the genetically modified potato EH92-527-1 (BPS-25271-9) and the adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of the potato in food and other feed products under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document C(2010) 1196), OJ 2010 L 53, p. 15
( 3 ) Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies, OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13
( 4 ) Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1
( 5 ) Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed, OJ 2003 L 268, p. 1EN