Mayors' Collective Challenges EU’s Glyphosate Renewal in Court

Background of the Case

The plaintiffs in the case—Collectif des maires anti-pesticides, Comité de recherche et d’information indépendantes sur le génie génétique (CRIIGEN), and Agir pour l’environnement—are well-known environmental advocacy groups based in France. Represented by lawyer Corinne Lepage, they seek to annul the Commission's Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2660, which renewed the approval of glyphosate, a controversial herbicide widely used in agriculture across Europe.

The Four Key Arguments

The plaintiffs raise four primary concerns in their legal action:

1. Procedural Irregularities: The first argument alleges multiple procedural flaws in the Commission’s decision-making process, which could undermine the legitimacy of the final ruling.
2. Legal Errors: The second argument points to significant errors of law in the Commission’s approach, suggesting that the decision does not align with EU regulations regarding pesticide authorisation.
3. Violation of the Precautionary Principle: The third argument asserts that the Commission failed to adequately apply the EU’s precautionary principle, a fundamental tenet of environmental law, which mandates thorough risk assessment before approval.
4. Unlawful Delegation to Member States: Finally, the plaintiffs argue that the Commission improperly delegated risk management responsibilities to individual Member States, avoiding direct accountability.

Why Glyphosate Matters

Glyphosate has been a subject of heated debate for years. Initially approved for agricultural use across Europe, its potential health and environmental risks, especially links to cancer, have sparked significant concern. While proponents argue that glyphosate is an essential tool for crop protection, critics stress the importance of prioritising public health and environmental safety.

Implications for the European Union

This lawsuit comes at a crucial time when the EU is facing mounting pressure from environmental groups and the public to reconsider its stance on glyphosate. If successful, the case could not only lead to the annulment of the current regulation but also reshape how the EU manages pesticide approvals in the future.

The case also highlights a broader trend of local authorities and non-governmental organisations challenging EU-level decisions that they believe do not adequately protect public health. In particular, the Collectif des maires anti-pesticides has been a vocal advocate for stricter pesticide regulations, arguing that current EU policies favour industrial agricultural interests over environmental and human health concerns.