WordPress database error: [Table 'marketresearchwriteup_wordpress.wp_ppress_plans' doesn't exist]
SELECT COUNT(id) FROM wp_ppress_plans WHERE status = 'true'

Digging a moat to guard the fortress partitions: CJEU solidifies limitations to NGO standing - Market Research Writeup

Digging a moat to guard the fortress partitions: CJEU solidifies limitations to NGO standing


C-784/18 P Mellifera v Fee, ECLI:EU:C:2020:630

On 2 September 2020, the Courtroom of Justice confirmed that the NGO Mellifera had no standing to problem the European Fee’s authorization of the herbicide glyphosate. Mellifera had sought to overturn the Normal Courtroom’s judgement in case T-102/17, beforehand analysed on this e-newsletter (see right here). The Courtroom of Justice judgement doesn’t solely verify the restricted standing of NGOs to problem EU acts by the use of inside overview, the Courtroom additionally ordered the applicant to pay the prices of the intervening occasion (Bayer), thus including yet one more entry to justice barrier.


In 2016, Mellifera, a small NGO engaged on the safety of bees, submitted a request for inside overview to the EU Fee. It requested the Fee to rethink its Implementing Regulation by which it prolonged the approval interval for the herbicide glyphosate, which has been labelled as „in all probability carcinogenic“ by the Worldwide Company for Analysis on Most cancers (IARC). The Fee rejected the request for inside overview on the idea that the contested Implementing Regulation was of common scope and, thus, not an “administrative act” for the needs of the Aarhus Regulation (Regulation 1367/2006). Mellifera contested this refusal unsuccessfully earlier than the Normal Courtroom (case T-102/17, talked about above) after which appealed to the Courtroom of Justice.

The judgement

The Courtroom then rejected the applicant’s first argument that the choice to increase the approval of glyphosate is in actual fact a call of particular person scope. The applicant had argued that the Regulation confirmed the approval for a selected applicant and substance, corresponding to a advertising and marketing authorisation for GMOs. The Courtroom held that the choice was of common scope as a result of it regulated the approval processes of plant safety merchandise containing glyphosate by Member State authorities. It’s subsequently totally different to a advertising and marketing authorization, which permits the inserting of a substance available on the market by the applicant with out a additional intervening act (paras 59-63 and following).

The Courtroom additionally rejects the applicant’s second argument that an interpretation of the Aarhus Regulation that’s in keeping with Artwork. 9(3) Aarhus Conference would require that its request be declared admissible. The Courtroom confirms the Normal Courtroom’s discovering that it’s not potential to interpret the time period “particular person scope“ in a fashion that may embody the contested Implementing Regulation, stating that this might quantity to a contra legem interpretation (paras 78-79 and following).

The Courtroom subsequently rejected the enchantment. It additional ordered Mellifera to hold the prices of not solely the European Fee but in addition of the intervening occasion, Bayer Agriculture BVBA.


First, the judgement confirms the extraordinarily restricted standing for NGOs to problem EU acts by the use of inside overview. Not too long ago, Advocate Normal Bobek himself compelled in his Opinion on Case C-352/19 Bruxelles v Fee (see our evaluation of the related Normal Courtroom judgement right here) to incorporate an intermezzo with a dialogue of “direct and particular person concern and the artwork of site visitors management”. Although these statements have been made in relation to a declare introduced by a federal entity to the Normal Courtroom underneath Artwork. 263 TFEU, each the content material and the indignant tone of a lot of this part, and the Opinion as a complete, seem equally relevant right here. Not least as a result of the case additionally involved the authorization of glyphosate by the EU Fee.

The Advocate Normal requested three significantly pertinent questions that we would go away to the reader to ponder:

  1. Given the enlargement of the EU Courts in recent times, whereas nationwide courts do typically have restricted capability, is it nonetheless cheap to defer to preliminary references as a viable different to direct Normal Courtroom entry (para. 142)?
  2. In instances that concern complicated regulatory and technical points and require intensive assortment of proof, skilled opinion and/or scientific information, wouldn’t it not be extra cheap to permit for entry to the Normal Courtroom, as an alternative of counting on a validity problem by the use of a preliminary ruling? It ought to be thought-about that in preliminary reference procedures, the CJEU doesn’t gather any proof and just about by no means hears skilled witnesses (paras. 143-145).
  3. Would the applicant have been higher served if, as an alternative of creating a request for inside overview, “it (naturally, fully hypothetically) instructed a few of its staff to exit and vandalise a number of retailers” (para. 146)? This query refers back to the current Blaise case, wherein sure candidates obtained entry to the EU Courts by doing precisely that and acquiring a preliminary reference as a part of the following prison proceedings (see our evaluation, right here).

Second, by ordering the NGO to pay the prices of the intervening occasion, successfully punishes for a company that seeks to defend the general public from a probably carcinogenic substance. Mellifera is a small NGO from Rosenfeld, a small city within the south of Germany counting presently 6347 inhabitants. An unreasonable price demand from Bayer might simply finish the existence of such an NGO.

Article 9(4) Aarhus Conference establishes that prices might not be prohibitively costly and the CJEU has rendered plenty of judgements upholding this precept in relation to nationwide litigation. Nevertheless, in its jurisprudence relating to its personal prices, such a reference is for now lacking. Whereas many Member States regulate the quantity of lawyer charges to be paid (Germany, Austria) or impose particular limits based mostly on the case at hand (Poland, Slovakia), there’s presently no such regulation on EU degree.


In conclusion, the Courtroom not solely solidified the prevailing wall stopping standing for environmental NGOs, the price order added a moat for these candidates trying to scale the partitions. The Courtroom has once more demonstrated a disappointing lack of awareness of public curiosity litigation.



The publish Digging a moat to guard the fortress partitions: CJEU solidifies limitations to NGO standing appeared first on ClientEarth.