Case T-578/24: Action brought on 12 November 2024 – Deutsche Umwelthilfe and Aurelia Stiftung v Commission
Date: 2024-11-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: biodiversity, groundwater, herbicide, insect, market approval, plant health control, risk management, surface water, toxic substance, water protection








C_202500270EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/270


20.1.2025






Action brought on 12 November 2024 – Deutsche Umwelthilfe and Aurelia Stiftung v Commission


(Case T-578/24)

(C/2025/270)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Deutsche Umwelthilfe eV (Radolfzell, Germany) and Aurelia Stiftung (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: R. Klinger and C. Douhaire, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Decision Ref. Ares(2024)4619143 of the defendant of 26 June 2024, which was sent in German on 13 September 2024, in so far as it rejects as unfounded the applicants’ request of 24 January 2024 for internal review of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2660 (1) renewing the approval of the active substance glyphosate;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law: infringement of Article 4(1) and 3(e)(iii) of Regulation (EC) 1107/2009 (2) and of the precautionary principle on the ground that insufficient account was taken of unacceptable indirect effects on biodiversity
The defendant incorrectly assumed that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) had carried out a risk assessment, that indirect effects on biodiversity had been comprehensively assessed and that no specific risks or concerns had been identified.
The defendant also incorrectly assumed that the data submitted by the applicant companies (‘the Glyphosate Renewal Group’) to assess indirect effects on biodiversity were of sufficient quality.
The defendant’s risk management with regard to indirect effects on biodiversity is insufficient. This applies, first of all, to the requirement that the Glyphosate Renewal Group provide confirmatory information on possible indirect effects on biodiversity via trophic interactions, while the specific provisions requiring the Member States to consider indirect effects on biodiversity also do not constitute effective risk management.










2.


Second plea in law: infringement of Article 4(1) and 3(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) 1107/2009 and of the precautionary principle on the ground that insufficient account was taken of unacceptable (direct) effects on insects
New findings that glyphosate has highly toxic direct effects on insects were not sufficiently taken into account in the risk assessment.










3.


Third plea in law: infringement of Article 4(1) and (3)(e)(i) of Regulation (EC) 1107/2009 and of the precautionary principle on the ground that insufficient account was taken of unacceptable effects on water bodies
The defendant applied an incorrect standard when assessing the risk of the spread of glyphosate in surface waters. In addition, it incorrectly assumed that risk management with regard to surface water and groundwater pollution is sufficient.






(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2660 of 28 November 2023 renewing the approval of the active substance glyphosate in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ L 2023/2660).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/270/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)