Shackles for Bees? The ECJ's Judgment on GMO-Contaminated Honey

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias Lamping
Keyword(s):  
Marketing Authorisation ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Market Authorisation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Considerable Impact ◽  
Natural Component

Case C-442/09, Bablok and Others (not yet reported)An old German proverb says: What the farmer doesn't know he doesn't eat. In the case of the Bablok decision delivered by the European Court of Justice on 6 September 2011, it is not the farmers, but the judges who seem to be wary about the unknown. According to their judgement, substances derived from genetically modified plants require market authorisation to be placed on the market as food, even if the substance itself is not fertile anymore. Since the Court takes the view that pollen is an ingredient of honey rather than a natural component, honey contaminated with pollen from genetically modified organisms will fall within the classification of foodstuffs requiring marketing authorisation. So whenever a bee collects pollen from a genetically modified plant, this can make the entire honey harvest unmarketable. Not even the slightest contamination will be tolerated, irrespective of whether it was intentional. Because the prohibition to put unauthorised honey on the market applies abstractly, regardless of whether there is a concrete risk for the health of consumers, the judgement will have considerable impact on the coexistence of conventional, ecological and genetically-modified farming.

scholarly journals GM Foods, Risk, Precaution and the Internal Market: Did Both Sides Win the Day in the recent Judgment of the European Court of Justice?

2004 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 151-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrycja Dąbrowska
Keyword(s):  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Novel Foods ◽  
The Precautionary Principle ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
First Case ◽  
European Court ◽  
Simplified Procedure

Almost exactly one year after the famous judgments of the Court of First Instance on the precautionary principle, the European Court of Justice (hereinafter “the Court”) has issued a preliminary ruling further exploring this concept. The ruling arose from a national dispute concerning a temporary ban on novel foods produced from genetically modified organisms (hereinafter “GMOs”). This recent Monsanto judgment is the first case in which the Court has directly invoked the precautionary principle regarding Member States’ power to adopt a provisional prohibition on the marketing of GMO-derived novel foods. Simultaneously, the Court lent an ear to the arguments of Monsanto by declaring the validity of the simplified procedure laid down in the novel foods Regulation 258/97 and based on the contentious concept of substantial equivalence. Thus, it seems to have favoured the free circulation in the Community market of novel foodstuffs notwithstanding the presence of residues of genetically modified (hereinafter “GM”) protein, on the condition that there is no risk to human health.

scholarly journals The Concept of Essence of Fundamental Rights in the EU Legal Order: Peeling the Onion to its Core

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 332-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maja Brkan
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Multi Level ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality ◽  
The Eu

Essence of fundamental rights – Article 52(1) of the Charter – Multi-level protection of fundamental rights in Europe – Sources of essence – European Court of Justice case law on ‘very substance’ of fundamental rights – Constitutional traditions common to the Member States – European Court of Human Rights – Court of Justice of the EU – Schrems – Principle of proportionality – Absolute theory – Relative theory – Classification of interferences with essence – Objective interference – Subjective interference – Absolute rights – EU methodology for determination of interference with essence

Supplementary Protection Certificates for Plant Protection Products and Provisional Marketing Authorization: The ECJ's Decision in Lovells v. Bayer

2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-118
Author(s):  
Enrico Bonadio
Keyword(s):  
Marketing Authorisation ◽  
Plant Protection ◽  
Plant Protection Products ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Marketing Authorization ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) rendered a decision regarding supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) for plant protection products and provisional marketing authorisation. The ECJ clarified that SPCs for patented plant protection products may also be based on provisional marketing authorizations pursuant to Article 8(1) Directive 91/114 (author's headnote).

scholarly journals Europe’s first and last field trial of gene-edited plants?

eLife ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Denis Faure ◽  
Johnathan A Napier
Keyword(s):  
Field Trial ◽  
Gene Editing ◽  
Genetically Modified ◽  
Basic Research ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Publicly Funded ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Uk

On 5 June this year the first field trial of a CRISPR-Cas-9 gene-edited crop began at Rothamsted Research in the UK, having been approved by the UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. However, in late July 2018, after the trial had started, the European Court of Justice ruled that techniques such as gene editing fall within the European Union’s 2001 GMO directive, meaning that our gene-edited Camelina plants should be considered as genetically modified (GM). Here we describe our experience of running this trial and the legal transformation of our plants. We also consider the future of European plant research using gene-editing techniques, which now fall under the burden of GM regulation, and how this will likely impede translation of publicly funded basic research.

4. Sources and forms of EU law

2020 ◽  
pp. 100-130
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal System ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Eu

This chapter examines the forms and sources of European Union (EU) law. It describes the nature of the EU legal system and discusses the classification of various elements of EU law, which include institutional laws, procedural laws, and substantive laws. It explains that the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) are the principal sources of law for the Union. Other sources include regulations, Directives, procedural requirements, and international agreements and conventions. This chapter also discusses the contribution of the European Court of Justice (CJEU) to the sources of EU law.

4. Sources and forms of EU law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal System ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Eu

This chapter examines the forms and sources of European Union (EU) law. It describes the nature of the EU legal system and discusses the classification of various elements of EU law, which include institutional laws, procedural laws, and substantive laws. It explains that the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) are the principal sources of law for the Union. Other sources include regulations, Directives, procedural requirements, and international agreements and conventions. This chapter also discusses the contribution of the European Court of Justice (CoJ) to the sources of EU law.

Punitive Administrative Sanctions After the Treaty of Lisbon: Does Administrative Really Mean Administrative?

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 156-176
Author(s):  
Markus Kärner
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
European Court ◽  
Administrative Sanctions

This article analyses the dichotomy between administrative and criminal sanctions in European Union law and aims to establish which limits do the policy goals of the European Union set for the national transposition of administrative sanctions as opposed to criminal sanctions. The article discusses the difficulties in differentiating between administrative and criminal sanctions and gives an overview of the evolution of the European Union sanctioning system from the early competence disputes to the rationale behind the post-Lisbon parallel harmonisation of criminal and administrative sanctions. The final part of the article uses these findings along with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice to ascertain the key requirements for transposing European Union administrative sanctions into national law, namely whether the policy goals of the European Union require the formal non-criminal classification of the sanction as a way of negative harmonisation of criminal law.

Fighting for Authority: Strategic Actions of National High Courts in the European Union

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2-2019) ◽  
pp. 419-433
Author(s):  
Stefanie Vedder
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Principal Agent Theory ◽  
Strategic Actions ◽  
High Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Lower Courts

National high courts in the European Union (EU) are constantly challenged: the European Court of Justice (ECJ) claims the authority to declare national standing interpretations invalid should it find them incompatible with its views on EU law. This principle noticeably impairs the formerly undisputed sovereignty of national high courts. In addition, preliminary references empower lower courts to question interpretations established by their national ‘superiors’. Assuming that courts want to protect their own interests, the article presumes that national high courts develop strategies to elude the breach of their standing interpretations. Building on principal-agent theory, the article proposes that national high courts can use the level of (im-) precision in the wording of the ECJ’s judgements to continue applying their own interpretations. The article develops theoretical strategies for national high courts in their struggle for authority.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document