Deutsche Umwelthilfe Challenges EU Commission's Approval Extensions for Pesticides

Background on the Case

The case, officially titled Deutsche Umwelthilfe v Commission (Case T-467/24), centers around the European Commission's April 2024 decision, communicated to DUH in July, to reject DUH’s request for an internal review. DUH’s review request was initially submitted in November 2023, challenging the continued use of flufenacet and sulfuryl fluoride under EU Regulation No. 1107/2009, which governs the market approval of plant protection products.

The environmental group claims the Commission acted unlawfully by refusing to revoke the pesticides' approval. DUH’s action calls for the European Court to annul the Commission’s decision on the grounds of regulatory and procedural breaches, as well as failure to uphold health and environmental standards.

Legal Arguments Raised by Deutsche Umwelthilfe

First Plea: Breach of Environmental Regulations

DUH’s first plea argues that the Commission’s decision contravenes Article 10 of EU Regulation No. 1367/2006, which aligns EU policies with the Aarhus Convention. According to DUH, the failure to review the approval withdrawal request violates the EU's environmental regulations, which enable public entities to request internal reviews on matters affecting public health and the environment. The group asserts that the Commission’s omission constitutes an actionable administrative failure.

Second Plea: Misinterpretation of Pesticide Approval Regulations

DUH’s second plea claims that the Commission misinterpreted Article 17 of EU Regulation No. 1107/2009, which addresses the approval and extension of pesticide use in the EU. The organization contends that the Commission should not extend approvals without carefully considering potential human health and environmental impacts. They also argue that repeated extensions of pesticide approvals without final assessments violate EU procedural integrity and the precautionary principle outlined in EU foundational treaties.

DUH’s plea also emphasizes that the extension periods granted for flufenacet and sulfuryl fluoride exceeded necessary procedural durations, further infringing upon Article 17's provisions.

Future Implications and Potential Outcomes

This case could set a precedent on the EU’s obligations regarding pesticide approval extensions and the role of the precautionary principle in environmental and health risk evaluations. If successful, DUH’s action may compel the EU Commission to re-evaluate its policies on pesticide regulation, potentially impacting future approvals and extensions for other controversial chemical agents.