Agrégateur de flux

Cour d'assises de Seine et Marne, section 1, 27 janvier 2017 ; Cour d'assises du Val de Marne, 14 janvier 2017

Pourvoi c./ Cour d'appel de Nouméa, 1ere chambre, 28 février 2017

Pourvoi c./ Cour d'appel de Versailles,13e chambre, 30 mars 2017

Pourvoi c./ Cour d'appel de Paris, Pôle 6, 30 Mars 2017

Hang on a minute. Were not the EU and its Member States supposed to be precaution obsessed? Don’t the EU and its Member States alike adopt bans on all things GMO for no other reason than that they simply do not want them? How then can the CJEU hold in C-111/16 Fidenato that Member States do not have the option of adopting, in accordance with Article 54 of Regulation 178/2002, the EU’s general food safety law, interim emergency measures solely on the basis of the precautionary principle?

The reason lies in pre-emption, aka exhaustion, and in the balance between EU and national risk management which EU law strikes in the specific field of GM cultivation. Of note is that in the meantime most biotech companies have given up on cultivation of GM varieties in the EU.

As extremely well summarised by Bobek AG in his Opinion in the case, the formulation of the relevant EU legislation is such as to provide that post EU authorisation (here: of genetically modified maize MON 810) Member States may only take emergency measures where the continued cultivation of the approved products is ‘likely to constitute a serious risk’. While the precautionary principle may play its role fully at the level of the EU’s risk management preceding authorisation, and indeed post such authorisation, too, Member States are given less leeway in their national emergency measures. In prescribing these rules, the EU safeguards the harmonised approach to the GM varieties at issue.

(Mr Fidenato nb is something of a cause celebre among the GM community). Please note, again, that the case concerns the growing (‘cultivation’) of GM crops. Not the import, export or use of products containing GM.

Finally it is important to point out that the Court does not equate precaution with the absence of science. It is the degree of scientific certainty here which is relevant, not the absence ‘v’ presence thereof.

Geert.

Dans la présente communication, la Commission européenne évalue les actions réalisées dans le cadre de l’Agenda européen pour les migrations et présente les futures étapes nécessaires au perfectionnement de la politique migratoire européenne.

en lire plus

Dans la présente communication, la Commission européenne évalue les actions réalisées dans le cadre de l’Agenda européen pour les migrations et présente les futures étapes nécessaires au perfectionnement de la politique migratoire européenne.

en lire plus

Statut collectif du travail - Eléments objectifs justifiant la différence de traitement - Présomption

Under the leadership of prof Hess, MPI Luxembourg have collated a treasure chest of data on what, in practice, continues to hold up recognition and enforcement of judgments in the EU Member States. The Study, released last week, was conducted for the European Commission. Its main conclusion suggests that in particular the service of documents could do with streamlining.

That all in all modest recommendation suggests that the very variety of civil procedure rules in the EU Member States in and of itself is not the main obstacle in recognition and enforcement. I insert a big caveat here for I have so far only read the exec summary and the main recommendations, however if they are anything to go by, the study in effect has to serve as a strong argument against more harmonisation of civil procedure rules at the EU level.

Debate no doubt to be continued.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.16.