Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 December 2016 — TestBioTech and Others v Commission
(Case T‑177/13)
(Environment — Genetically modified products — Genetically modified soybean MON 87701 x MON 89788 — Request for internal review of the decision on marketing authorisation dismissed as unfounded — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)
1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measure not yet final in relation to the applicant — Inclusion — Limits
(Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU)
(see paras 44, 46)
2. International agreements — European Union Agreements — Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental issues (Aarhus Convention) — Effects — Primacy over secondary legislation of the European Union — Examination of the legality of an act of secondary EU law having regard to the provisions of that convention — Precluded
(Aarhus Convention, Art. 9(3); European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1367/2006, Art. 10(1))
(see para. 50)
3. Environment — Aarhus Convention — Application to EU institutions — Ability of non-governmental organisations to request internal re-examination of administrative measures in environmental matters — Subject-matter of the re-examination
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1367/2006, Arts 10(1), and 11)
(see para. 51)
4. Environment — Aarhus Convention — Application to EU institutions — Ability of non-governmental organisations to request internal re-examination of administrative measures in environmental matters — No possibility of demanding the adoption of a specific measure
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1367/2006, Art. 10)
(see para. 55)
5. Environment — Aarhus Convention — Application to EU institutions — Ability of non-governmental organisations to request internal re-examination of administrative measures in environmental matters — Statement of the grounds for re-examination — Need to indicate factors likely to raise doubts as to whether the measure in question well-founded — Obligation on the Commission to examine where such factors present — Scope
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1367/2006)
(see paras 67, 83, 85-87, 109)
6. Environment — Aarhus Convention — Application to EU institutions — Ability of non-governmental organisations to request internal re-examination of administrative measures in environmental matters — Request dismissed as unfounded — Judicial review — Limits
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1367/2006, Art. 10)
(see paras 76-80)
7. Approximation of laws — Genetically modified foodstuffs and animal feed — Regulation No 1829/2003 — Authorisation to market — Discretion of the Commission — Binding force of the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority — None
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1829/2003, Arts 4 and 16)
(see para. 103)
8. Protection of public health — Assessment of risks — Application of the precautionary principle — Scope — Concepts of risk and hazard — Determination of the level of risk judged unacceptable for society — Competence of the EU institution designated by the relevant legislation
(Art. 168(1) TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1829/2003, thirty-second and forty-third recitals)
(see paras 104-109)
9. EU law — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Conditions — Specific assurances given by the authorities
(see para. 115)
10. Actions for annulment — Grounds — Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons — Separate ground from the one concerning substantive legality
(Arts 263 TFEU and 296, second para., TFEU)
(see para. 129)
11. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Assessment of the duty to state reasons by reference to the circumstances of the case
(Art. 296, second para., TFEU)
(see para. 130)
12. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — General reference to documents annexed to the application — Inadmissibility
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c))
(see para. 141)
13. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — General reference in support of a second plea to matters set out in the context of the first — Inadmissibility
(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c))
(see paras 145, 146)
14. Judicial proceedings — Production of evidence — Time-limit — Evidence lodged out of time — Conditions
(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 85(3))
(see paras 250, 251)
15. Environment — Aarhus Convention — Application to EU institutions — Access to justice — Reasonableness of the cost of the proceedings — Criteria for assessment
(Aarhus Convention, Art. 9(4))
(see para. 302)
16. Judicial proceedings — Treatment of cases before the General Court — Protection given to parties against misuse of pleadings and other procedural documents — Scope — Publication of the opposing party’s defence on the internet — Abuse of procedure — Account to be taken when allocating costs
(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(2))
(see para. 307)
Re:
| APPLICATION pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 8 January 2013, concerning the review of Commission Implementing Decision 2012/347/EU of 28 June 2012 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87701 x MON 89788 (MON-877Ø1-2 x MON-89788-1), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2012 L 171, p. 13). |
Operative part
The Court:
2. | | Orders TestBioTech eV, European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility eV and Sambucus eV to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
3. | | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and Monsanto Europe and Monsanto Company to bear their own costs. |