Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/740

10.2.2025

(Case T-636/24)

(C/2025/740)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Secrets Toxiques (Paris, France) ANPER-TOS Association Nationale pour la Protection des Eaux et Rivières, Truites-Ombres-Saumons (Sainte-Suzanne-sur-Vire, France), Avenir Santé Environnement (Périgny, France), Confédération paysanne (Bagnolet, France) (represented by: G. Tumerelle, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—annul the decision of the Commission of 26 June 2024, the French version of which was communicated to the applicants on 30 September 2024, rejecting the request for internal review, lodged on 12 February 2024 pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006, in respect of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2660 of 28 November 2023 renewing the approval of the active substance glyphosate in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011,

—order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.

—The applicants claim, in that regard, that the refusal to review Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2660 infringes Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 by failing to observe the criteria for the approval of active substances. They argue that it was adopted without an assessment of the long-term toxicity of the so-called ‘representative’ formulation.

—According to the applicants, the contested decision infringes Article 11 of the PPP Regulation by basing its assessment of the representative formulation on a confidential simulation which is based on incomplete and confidential data and is not transparent.

—The contested decision allegedly infringes Article 11 of the PPP Regulation by failing to take into consideration the available scientific data resulting from international research.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the high level of protection for human health and the environment required by the TFEU, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 is not guaranteed.

—The applicants submit that the refusal to review the contested Implementing Regulation does not ensure the high level of protection for human health and the environment enshrined in Article 168(1) and Article 191(1) and (2) TFEU as well as in Articles 35 and 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and provided by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 when the European Commission renews an approval despite several important issues identified during the assessment.

3.Third plea in law, alleging failure to observe the precautionary principle.

—The applicants state, in that regard, that the refusal to review the contested Implementing Regulation falls short of the policy objectives of the European Union enshrined in Article 191 TFEU. According to the precautionary principle, the absence of a study of the long-term toxicity of the representative formulation of glyphosate or of glyphosate-based formulations cannot lead to the assumption that there are no long-term toxic or carcinogenic effects.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to live in a healthy environment.

—According to the applicants, the refusal to review the regulation infringes the right to live in a healthy environment. Due to the widespread use of glyphosate-based herbicides, the active substance pollutes in a diffuse way all environments and the food chain.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/740/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—