Case C-616/17 Blaise and Others: The precautionary principle and its role in judicial review – Glyphosate and the regulatory framework for pesticides

AuthorSabrina Röttger-Wirtz
Published date01 August 2020
Date01 August 2020
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X20949424
Subject MatterCase Notes
Case Note
Case C-616/17 Blaise and Others:
The precautionary principle
and its role in judicial review
– Glyphosate and the regulatory
framework for pesticides
Sabrina Ro
¨ttger-Wirtz*
Abstract
The approval renewal of glyphosate as an active substance for pesticides in the EUhas also kept the
Court of Justice occupied. Within this line of case law, the Blaise case is the most recent one. In this
preliminary reference procedure the Court was asked to review the validity of the Plant Protection
ProductsRegulation 1107/2009,examined againstthe precautionary principleas benchmark. Thecase
is relevant not only for the questionsraised about the Regulation, butalso as it sheds a light on the –
albeit limited – use of the precautionary principle in the judicial reviewof EU legislative measure.
Keywords
Judicial review, precautionary principle, pesticides, glyphosate, validity
1. Introduction
The Blaise case is the most recent of a line of cases arising in the context of the intense debate
surrounding the renewed approval of glyphosate as an active substance for plant protection prod-
ucts in December 2017.
1
Unlike previous cases, it does not concern access to documents and the
* Maastricht University, Minderbroedersberg, LK Maastricht, Netherlands
Corresponding author:
Sabrina Ro
¨ttger-Wirtz, Maastricht University, Minderbroedersberg 4–6, 6211 LK Maastricht, Netherlands.
E-mail: S.Roettger-Wirtz@maastrichtuniversity.nl
1. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2324 of 12 December 2017 renewing the approval of the active
substance glyphosate in accordance with Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council
concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Imple-
menting Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, (C/2017/8419), OJ L 333, p. 10–16. For an insight into the controversies see
Maastricht Journal of European and
Comparative Law
2020, Vol. 27(4) 529–542
ªThe Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1023263X20949424
maastrichtjournal.sagepub.com
MJ
MJ

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT