Today, the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the EU concluded that the European Commission acted unlawfully by re-approving the pesticide cypermethrin with major toxicity data gaps in the reapproval dossier, by relying on non-validated and unrealistic risk mitigation measures, and by disregarding toxicity to insects. The Advocate General agrees with many arguments put forward by PAN Europe in this appeal case against the EU re-approval of cypermethrin, a highly toxic insecticide. [1]
It is the first time a civil society organisation has brought an EU pesticide approval case to the EU’s highest court. This was made possible by the 2021 revision of the Aarhus Regulation, which granted NGOs access to challenge pesticide approvals at the EU level. In 2024, the General Court of the EU dismissed the case against the re-approval of cypermethrin [2], and PAN Europe appealed that decision in front of the Court of Justice [3][4]. In today's opinion, the Advocate General recommended the Court of Justice to annul the judgment of the General Court.
“The Advocate General’s opinion sends a clear signal: the European Commission cannot bend the rules to serve the pesticide industry and Member States,” said Martin Dermine, Executive Director of PAN Europe. “EU law is not optional: It exists to protect people’s health and the environment, not corporate convenience.”
The opinion highlights that the European Commission cannot sidestep the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) scientific conclusions without providing strong and evidence-based justifications. EFSA had clearly stated that no safe use of cypermethrin could be identified under realistic conditions. However, the Commission went against that opinion by fabricating non-validated risk mitigation measures, such as an unrealistic 99% reduction in spray drift, would make the use of the substance safe.
Professor Antoine Bailleux, legal counsel of PAN Europe, said: "After the disappointment of the General Court’s judgment, it is comforting to see that one of the most respected Advocate General at the Court of Justice supports most of our arguments. Although we need more time to analyse this exceptionally detailed and in-depth opinion, two points seem particularly noteworthy: (1) The Commission must set out in detail why it renews an active substance despite ‘critical areas of concerns’ raised by EFSA; (2) the long-term toxicity of the various components of a plant protection product (including but not limited to the active substance), including their ‘cocktail effects’, must be thoroughly examined. These two points stand to common sense but were ignored in the renewal of cypermethrin."
“EU Court clarified already in 2019 on the obligation to test long-term toxicity of at least one pesticide formulation, before granting an EU-approval. The Advocate General once more reminds of this obligation but the Commission and Member States keep disrespecting this legal obligation, which puts citizens' health at high risk. We trust the Court will now follow this opinion, leading to a better protection of citizens' health,” concluded Salomé Royne, Policy Officer at PAN Europe. “Citizens deserve better than dangerous pesticides approved on incomplete science.”
The final ruling of the Court is expected later in 2025.
Background
Cypermethrin is a synthetic pyrethroid insecticide highly toxic to bees and aquatic organisms, and suspected to disrupt the human endocrine system. Despite clear warning signs (‘critical areas of concern’) and an incomplete dossier, the European Commission and Member States reapproved the substance in 2021. PAN Europe launched a legal challenge, arguing that the Commission ignored EU law, EFSA’s scientific assessment, and the precautionary principle.
Notes:
[1] Opinion of the Advocate General of the EU Court of Justice
Contact:
- Martin Dermine, Executive Director, martin [at] pan-europe.info, +32 486 32 99 92
- Salomé Roynel, Policy Officer, salome [at] pan-europe.info, +32 451 02 31 33
