In a landmark decision, the Paris Court of Appeal has held the French State accountable for ecological harm resulting from outdated and inadequate pesticide environmental risk assessments. The ruling obliges the French State to update its pesticide evaluation protocols and review all pesticide authorisations within 24 months. This decision is partly based on a ruling by the EU Court of Justice in a case filed by PAN Europe, which concluded that EU States must base pesticide approvals on the most up-to-date scientific evidence. [1]
Two years after the French State was first held responsible for widespread pesticide contamination, the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal has confirmed its liability in the ecological damage caused by pesticides, including soil and water pollution, as well as biodiversity loss. “The Court of Appeal has made it clear: outdated protocols on pesticide risk assessment are harming biodiversity. In order to ensure compliance with the law, pesticide risks need to be assessed on the basis of the most recent scientific insights,” said Dr. Barbara Berardi, Senior Policy Officer at PAN Europe, who previously worked on the case. [2]
The Court concluded that the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES) has failed to implement EU law, particularly regarding the protection of non-target species, because its pesticide risk assessments are not aligned with the latest scientific evidence. According to the French Court, this has directly contributed to the worsening of ecological damage. In April 2024, the EU Court of Justice ruled that pesticide assessments by Member States were unlawful for not being based on the latest independent scientific evidence, following complaints from PAN Europe. This ruling should put an end to the systematic use by EU Member States of decades-old industry-backed guidance and studies. [3]
Because of this, the French Court now orders the State to update the protocols for evaluating and authorising pesticides that do not provide sufficient protection for non-target organisms, and to review all marketing authorisations currently in force within 24 months. The State must also establish a timetable for reviewing those hundreds of marketing authorisations within the next six months.
According to the decision, failures in assessing the risks of pesticides have led to pesticide approvals being given incorrectly—or without the safety restrictions that should have been in place. While these failures are not the only cause of ecological damage, they have made the problem worse. Because of this direct impact, the State can be held legally responsible.
Barbara Berardi concludes: “This is a victory for science, prevailing against outdated regulatory risk assessment procedures, which are responsible for damage to the environment and human health.”
The French court case was launched by the organisations POLLINIS, Notre Affaire à Tous, and other environmental organizations united in the coalition Justice pour le Vivant (Justice for the Living). [4]
Notes:
[1] EU Court: member states do not properly carry out pesticide assessments
[2] Dr. Barbara Berardi was Head of Research and Advocacy until June 2025 at Pollinis, one of the plaintiffs in the case.
[3] EU Court: member states do not properly carry out pesticide assessments
Contact:
- Barbara Berardi, Senior Policy Officer, barbara [at] pan-europe.info, +33 6 12 68 38 66
- Maria Fernández Sánchez, Press Officer, maria [at] pan-europe.info, +34 647 25 18 83
