Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2024/5300

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Udine (Italy) lodged on 5 June 2024 – PH, in his own name and as owner of the ‘In Trois’ farm v Ministero dell’Agricoltura, della Sovranità Alimentare e delle Foreste

(Case C-393/24, Vottolo)

(C/2024/5300)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PH, in his own name and as owner of the ‘In Trois’ farm

Respondent: Ministero dell’Agricoltura, della Sovranità Alimentare e delle Foreste

Questions referred

1.Are the provisions of Directive 2015/412/EC, which insert Articles 26b and 26c into Directive 2001/18/EC, to include the possibility for Member States to ‘(…) demand that the geographical scope of the written consent or authorisation be adjusted to the effect that all or part of the territory of that Member State is to be excluded from cultivation (…)’, and the ensuing Commission Decision No 321 of 3 March 2016 consistent with the principle of non-discrimination between national and non-national products, with the principle of proportionality and with Articles 34, 36 and 216(2) TFEU?

2.Are the provisions of Directive 2015/412/EC, which insert Articles 26b and 26c into Directive 2001/18/EC, to include the possibility for Member States to ‘(…) demand that the geographical scope of the written consent or authorisation be adjusted to the effect that all or part of the territory of that Member State is to be excluded from cultivation (…)’, and the ensuing Commission Decision No 321 of 3 March 2016 consistent with Articles 16 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

3.Are the provisions of Directive 2015/412/EC, which insert Articles 26b and 26c into Directive 2001/18/EC, to include the possibility for Member States to ‘(…) demand that the geographical scope of the written consent or authorisation be adjusted to the effect that all or part of the territory of that Member State is to be excluded from cultivation (…)’, and the ensuing Commission Decision No 321 of 3 March 2016, consistent with Article 18 TFEU and Article 21 of the Nice Charter, given that the principle of non-discrimination is a pillar of the European Union?

4.Must Commission Decision No 321 of 3 March 2016 be interpreted as meaning that applications for restrictions of the right to cultivate MON810 GMO maize seeds are permitted by, and are in accordance with, the TEU and the TFEU only on the grounds set out in Article 26b(3)(a) to (g) of Directive 2001/18/EC, or have they been permitted under the transitional rules laid down in Article 26c of Directive 2001/18/EC, as well as on other grounds, including economic grounds, which may differ from State to State?

5.Is Commission Decision No 321 of 3 March 2016 therefore valid, in the light of the whole body of rules governing GMOs in the single European market, and does it not preclude national rules sanctioning the prohibition contained therein?

—

The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

Directive (EU) 2015/412 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2015 amending Directive 2001/18/EC as regards the possibility for the Member States to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in their territory (OJ 2015 L 68, p. 1).

Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (OJ 2001, L 106, p. 1).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5300/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—