JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 13 September 2017 (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Genetically modified food and feed — Emergency measures — National measure seeking to prohibit the cultivation of genetically modified maize MON 810 — Maintenance or renewal of the measure — Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 — Article 34 — Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 — Articles 53 and 54 — Conditions of application — Precautionary principle)
In Case C‑111/16, the Court (Third Chamber) received a request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Tribunale di Udine (District Court, Udine, Italy), made by decision of 10 December 2015, received at the Court on 24 February 2016, in the criminal proceedings against Giorgio Fidenato, Leandro Taboga and Luciano Taboga.
The Court, composed of L. Bay Larsen (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, M. Vilaras, J. Malenovský, M. Safjan and D. Šváby, Judges; Advocate General M. Bobek; Registrar R. Schiano, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 9 February 2017, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
- Giorgio Fidenato, Leandro Taboga and Luciano Taboga, by F. Longo, avvocato;
- the Italian Government, by G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, assisted by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato;
- the Greek Government, by G. Kanellopoulos and D. Ntourntoureka, acting as Agents;
- the European Commission, by C. Zadra and by K. Herbout‑Borczak and C. Valero, acting as Agents,
and after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 30 March 2017, gives the following:
Judgment
-
This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 34 of 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. 1) and Articles 53 and 54 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1).
-
The request has been made in criminal proceedings brought against Giorgio Fidenato, Leandro Taboga and Luciano Taboga, who are accused of cultivating genetically modified maize variety MON 810, in breach of national legislation prohibiting such cultivation.
Legal context
Regulation No 1829/2003
- Recitals 1‑3 emphasize the free movement of safe and wholesome food and feed and the need for a high level of protection of human life and health.
- Article 34 (‘Emergency measures’) states that where it is evident that products authorised by the regulation are likely to constitute a serious risk to human health, animal health or the environment, measures shall be taken under the procedures provided for in Articles 53 and 54 of Regulation No 178/2002.
Regulation No 178/2002
- Recitals 20‑21 set out the precautionary principle as a mechanism for risk management when scientific uncertainty persists.
- Article 6 requires food law to be based on risk analysis.
- Article 7 defines the precautionary principle, allowing provisional risk‑management measures in cases of scientific uncertainty.
- Article 53 outlines emergency measures that may be adopted by the Commission, and Article 54 allows Member States to adopt interim protective measures where the Commission has not acted.
- Article 58(1) provides for a Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health.
The dispute and questions referred
- By decision of 22 April 1998, the Commission authorised the placing on the market of maize MON 810.
- On 11 April 2013, the Italian Government requested emergency measures under Article 34 of Regulation 1829/2003 to prohibit the cultivation of MON 810, submitting scientific studies.
- The Commission, after a preliminary assessment, concluded that no urgent need existed for emergency measures (17 May 2013) and asked the European Food Safety Authority for a detailed evaluation (29 May 2013).
- The Italian Government subsequently prohibited the cultivation of MON 810 by decree (12 July 2013).
- The European Food Safety Authority’s Opinion 3371 (24 September 2013) found no new scientific evidence justifying emergency measures.
The national court referred the following questions to the Court:
- Is the Commission required to adopt emergency measures under Article 53 of Regulation No 178/2002 when a Member State informs it of the need to take such measures, even if no serious, evident risk is established?
- May a Member State adopt interim emergency measures under Article 54 of Regulation No 178/2002 when the Commission does not act, and may it maintain or renew those measures absent a Commission decision under Article 54(2)?
- Can the precautionary principle alone justify the adoption of interim emergency measures by a Member State under Article 54 of Regulation No 178/2002, without satisfying the conditions of Article 34 of Regulation 1829/2003?
- If the Commission’s assessment, confirmed by the EFSA, finds that the substantive conditions for emergency measures are not met, may the Member State continue, extend or renew its interim measures after the original period has expired?
Answer to the questions
-
First question – Article 34 of Regulation 1829/2003, read with Article 53 of Regulation 178/2002, does not oblige the Commission to adopt emergency measures when a Member State informs it under Article 54(1) unless it is evident that the authorised products pose a serious risk to health or the environment.
-
Second and fourth questions – A Member State may adopt interim emergency measures under Article 54 of Regulation 178/2002 after informing the Commission, and may maintain or renew those measures as long as the Commission has not adopted a decision under Article 54(2) requiring their amendment, extension or abrogation.
-
Third question – The precautionary principle, while a general principle of food law, cannot be used by a Member State to adopt interim emergency measures under Article 54 of Regulation 178/2002 unless the substantive conditions of Article 34 of Regulation 1829/2003 are satisfied. The principle does not override the specific requirements of Article 34.
Costs
The decision on costs is a matter for the national court; costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than those of the parties, are not recoverable.
Ruling
-
Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, read with Article 53 of Regulation No 178/2002, must be interpreted as meaning that the European Commission is not required to adopt emergency measures when a Member State informs it under Article 54(1), provided it is not evident that the authorised products constitute a serious risk to human health, animal health or the environment.
-
Article 34 of Regulation No 1829/2003, read with Article 54 of Regulation No 178/2002, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may, after officially informing the European Commission of the need to resort to emergency measures, adopt such measures at the national level and maintain or renew them, so long as the Commission has not adopted a decision under Article 54(2) requiring their extension, amendment or abrogation.
-
Article 34 of Regulation No 1829/2003, read with the precautionary principle as set out in Article 7 of Regulation No 178/2002, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not give Member States the option of adopting interim emergency measures solely on the basis of that principle without satisfying the conditions set out in Article 34 of Regulation 1829/2003.