Case C-58/10, Case C-59/10, Case C-60/10, Case C-61/10, Case C-62/10, Case C-63/10, Case C-64/10, Case C-65/10, Case C-66/10, Case C-67/10, Case C-68/10: References for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 3 February 2010 in Cases — Monsanto SAS, Monsanto Agriculture France SAS, Monsanto International SARL, Monsanto Technology LLC v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Monsanto SAS, Monsanto Agriculture France SAS, Monsanto International SARL, Monsanto Europe SA v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Association générale des producteurs de maïs (AGPM) v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — SCEA de Malaprade, SCEA Coutin, Jérôme Huard, Dominique Richer, EARL de Candelon, Bernard Mir, EARL des Menirs, Marie-Jeanne Darricau, GAEC de Commenian v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Pioneer Génétique, Pioneer Semences v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Syndicat des établissements de semences agréés pour les semences de maïs (SEPROMA) v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Caussade Semences SA v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Société Limagrain Verneuil Holding v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Société Maïsadour Semences v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Ragt Semences SA v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Euralis Semences SAS, Euralis Coop v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche
Date: 2010-02-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: animal nutrition, consumer information, environmental protection, genetically modified organism, health policy, interpretation of the law








C_2010100EN.01002601.xml










17.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/26





References for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 3 February 2010 in Cases — Monsanto SAS, Monsanto Agriculture France SAS, Monsanto International SARL, Monsanto Technology LLC v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Monsanto SAS, Monsanto Agriculture France SAS, Monsanto International SARL, Monsanto Europe SA v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Association générale des producteurs de maïs (AGPM) v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — SCEA de Malaprade, SCEA Coutin, Jérôme Huard, Dominique Richer, EARL de Candelon, Bernard Mir, EARL des Menirs, Marie-Jeanne Darricau, GAEC de Commenian v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Pioneer Génétique, Pioneer Semences v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Syndicat des établissements de semences agréés pour les semences de maïs (SEPROMA) v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Caussade Semences SA v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Société Limagrain Verneuil Holding v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Société Maïsadour Semences v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Ragt Semences SA v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche — Euralis Semences SAS, Euralis Coop v Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche
((Case C-58/10) - (Case C-59/10) - (Case C-60/10) - (Case C-61/10) - (Case C-62/10) - (Case C-63/10) - (Case C-64/10) - (Case C-65/10) - (Case C-66/10) - (Case C-67/10) - (Case C-68/10))
2010/C 100/39
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Monsanto SAS, Monsanto Agriculture France SAS, Monsanto International SARL, Monsanto Technology LLC (C-58/10), Monsanto SAS, Monsanto Agriculture France SAS, Monsanto International SARL, Monsanto Europe SA (C-59/10), Association générale des producteurs de maïs (AGPM) (C-60/10), SCEA de Malaprade, SCEA Coutin, Jérôme Huard, Dominique Richer, EARL de Candelon, Bernard Mir, EARL des Menirs, Marie-Jeanne Darricau, GAEC de Commenian (C-61/10), Pioneer Génétique, Pioneer Semences (C-62/10), Syndicat des établissements de semences agrees pour les semences de maïs (SEPROMA) (C-63/10), Caussade Semences SA (C-64/10), Société Limagrain Verneuil Holding (C-65/10), Société Maïsadour Semences (C-66/10), Ragt Semences SA (C-67/10), Euralis Semences SAS, Euralis Coop (C-68/10)

Defendant: Ministre de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche

Questions referred







1.


Where a genetically modified organism constituting feed was placed on the market prior to the publication of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (1) and the authorisation is maintained in force pursuant to Article 20 of that regulation, must the product at issue be regarded, before a decision has been taken on the application for new authorisation which must be submitted pursuant to the regulation, as among the products to which the provisions of Article 12 of Directive 2001/18/EC (2) cited in the grounds of the present decision refer and, in that event, is the genetically modified organism subject, with respect to the emergency measures which may be adopted after the issue of authorisation to place it on the market, only to Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 or, on the contrary, may such measures be adopted by a Member State on the basis of Article 23 of the directive and the national provisions transposing it?










2.


On the assumption that emergency measures may be adopted only within the framework of Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, may the authorities of a Member State adopt, and under what circumstances, a measure such as the contested order (3) on grounds of the containment of risk as referred to in Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (4) or by way of the interim protective measures which may be adopted by a Member State on the basis of Article 54 of the same regulation?










3.


On the assumption that the authorities of a Member State may intervene on the basis of Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC or on the basis of Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, or on both of those legal bases, the application raises the question as to what degree of requirement, taking into account in particular the precautionary principle, is imposed, respectively, by Article 23 of the directive under which the adoption of emergency measures such as a suspension of the use or provisional prohibition against use of the product is subject to the condition that the Member State must have ‘detailed grounds for considering that a GMO … constitutes a risk to … the environment’ and by Article 34 of the regulation under which the adoption of such a measure is subject to the condition that it be ‘evident’ that the product is ‘likely to constitute a serious risk to … the environment’, in terms of identifying the risk, evaluating its probability and assessing the nature of its effects?






(1)  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)

(2)  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)

(3)  Order of 5 December 2007 in Case C-58/10; order of 7 February 2008, as amended by the order of 13 February 2008, in Cases C-59/10 to C-68/10.

(4)  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).