Domstolens dom: EU's medlemsstater må ikke vedtage hasteforanstaltninger vedrørende genetisk modificeret mad og foder, medmindre det er åbenlyst, at der er en alvorlig risiko for helbredet eller miljøet

Press release of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 13 September 2017

I 1998, the European Commission authorised the placing on the market of genetically modified maize MON 810. In its decision, the Commission referred to the opinion of the Scientific Committee which stated that there was no reason to believe that that product would have any adverse effects on human health or the environment.

I 2013, the Italian Government asked the Commission to adopt emergency measures to prohibit the cultivation of maize MON 810 in the light of some new scientific studies carried out by two Italian research institutes. On the basis of a scientific opinion issued by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Kommissionen konkluderede, at der ikke var nye videnskabelige beviser til støtte for de anmodede nødforanstaltninger og for at ugyldiggøre dens tidligere konklusioner om sikkerheden ved majs MON 810. Trods dette, i 2013 den italienske regering vedtog et ministerielt dekret, der forbød dyrkning af MON 810 på italiensk territorium.

I 2014, Giorgio Fidenato og andre dyrkede majs MON 810 i strid med det ministerielle dekret, som de blev tiltalt for.

I forbindelse med straffesager mod disse personer, Retten i Udine (byretten, Udine, Italien) spurgte Domstolen, i særdeleshed, om nødforanstaltninger evt, i forhold til mad, tages ud fra forsigtighedsprincippet. I overensstemmelse med forsigtighedsprincippet, Member States may adopt emergency measures in order to avert risks to human health that have not yet been fully identified or understood because of scientific uncertainty.

By its judgment delivered today, the Court points out, first of all, that both EU food law and EU legislation on genetically modified food and feed seek to ensure a high level of protection of human health and consumers’ interest, whilst ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market, of which the free movement of safe and wholesome food and feed is an essential aspect.

In that context, the Court finds that, where it is not evident that genetically modified products are likely to constitute a serious risk to human health, animal health or the environment, hverken Kommissionen eller medlemsstaterne har mulighed for at vedtage hasteforanstaltninger såsom forbuddet mod dyrkning af majs MON 810.

Domstolen understreger, at forsigtighedsprincippet, hvilket forudsætter videnskabelig usikkerhed med hensyn til eksistensen af ​​en særlig risiko, er ikke tilstrækkeligt til at vedtage sådanne foranstaltninger. Selv om dette princip kan begrunde vedtagelsen af ​​foreløbige risikostyringsforanstaltninger på fødevareområdet generelt, den giver ikke mulighed for at se bort fra eller modificere de bestemmelser, der er fastsat i forbindelse med genetisk modificerede fødevarer, især ved at slappe af dem, da disse fødevarer allerede har gennemgået en fuldstændig videnskabelig vurdering, før de blev markedsført.

Endvidere, Domstolen finder, at en medlemsstat kan, where it has officially informed the Commission of the need to resort to emergency measures and where the Commission has not acted, adopt such measures at the national level. Furthermore, it may maintain or renew those measures, so long as the Commission has not adopted a decision requiring their extension, amendment or abrogation. In those circumstances, the national courts have jurisdiction to assess the lawfulness of the measures concerned.

Den full text of the judgment is published on the CURIA website on the day of delivery.