Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Subject-matter of the dispute – Application initiating proceedings

(Art. 226 EC)

2. Environment – Deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms – Directive 2001/18 – Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species – Directive 2002/53

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/18, Arts 22 and 23; Council Directive 2002/53, Arts 4(4), 16(1) and (2) and 17)

Summary

1. In an action brought under Article 226 EC, the application must set out the complaints coherently and with precision, so that the Member State and the Court can know exactly the full extent of the alleged infringement of Community law, a condition which must be satisfied if the Member State is to be able to present an effective defence and the Court to determine whether there has been a breach of obligations, as alleged.

That is not the case where the Commission provides detailed arguments only with respect to certain articles of a directive, before concluding that the contested national provisions are not compatible with the system of free circulation established by that directive as a whole and, in particular, with those articles. It follows that the action is admissible only as regards the alleged infringement of those articles, but not in so far as it seeks a declaration that Directive 2001/18 was infringed ‘in its entirety’.

(see paras 43, 46, 48)

2. A Member State which prohibits the free circulation of genetically modified seed varieties and the inclusion of genetically modified varieties in the national catalogue of varieties, fails to fulfil its obligations under Articles 22 and 23 of Directive 2001/18 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Directive 90/220, and under Articles 4(4) and 16 of Directive 2002/53 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species.

As regards Directive 2001/18, Articles 22 and 23 thereof place the Member States under an obligation not to prohibit, restrict or impede the placing on the market of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), as or in products, which comply with the requirements of that directive, save where, in accordance with the specific provisions laid down in that respect by that directive, they rely on the possibility of adopting the safeguard measures provided for thereunder. Furthermore, a national measure which unilaterally imposes a general prohibition on the marketing of GMO seed clearly infringes the provisions of Articles 22 and 23.

Such a general prohibition also clearly infringes Article 16(1) of Directive 2002/53, which places the Member States under an obligation not to make seed varieties accepted in accordance with that directive subject to any marketing restrictions relating to variety, unless they rely on the exceptions – not applicable in the present case – set out in Article 16(2). It is common ground in that regard that a certain number of varieties which have been accepted in accordance with that directive and which accordingly appear in the common catalogue, referred to in Article 17 thereof, are genetically modified varieties.

Furthermore, it is clear, in particular from Article 4(4) of Directive 2002/53, that the inclusion of genetically modified varieties in the national catalogue of varieties cannot be the subject of a general prohibition. It emerges, in particular, from Article 4(4) that any refusal to include a variety in the national catalogue solely because it is genetically modified is justified only if there has been a failure to take all appropriate measures to prevent adverse effects on human health and the environment, which cannot, in particular, be the case where a variety has been authorised under Directive 2001/18.

(see paras 61-64, operative part 1)