JURIST Supported by the University of Pittsburgh
PAPER CHASE NEWSBURSTDigest RSS feedFull RSS feed
Serious law. Primary sources. Global perspective.


Friday, September 09, 2011

ECJ rules France ban on genetically modified maize illegal
Sarah Posner at 9:57 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The European Court of Justice (ECJ) [official website] ruled [case materials; press release, PDF] Thursday that France's ban on the cultivation of a genetically modified (GM) maize was illegal. Although France has the right to impose a ban on GM maize, the court stated that France acted illegally by not following proper EU protocol [Reuters report]. In order to impose a ban, EU members must demonstrate that the product poses a serious risk to the environment or human or animal health, and notify the European Commission [official website] authorities of the need to take emergency measures. The GM maize was developed by US biotech giant Monsanto [corporate website] in 2008. The use of GM organisms, whether through experimentation or cultivation, is governed by EU law. France issued two orders prohibiting the planting of MON 810 maize seed, which is primarily used to make animal feed resistant to certain parasites. France first banned the product by way of emergency measures in 2007.

In March, ECJ Advocate General Paolo Mengozzi issued an opinion [JURIST report] stating that a French ban on cultivating genetically modified (GM) crops is illegal. France sought to prohibit production of MON 810 within its borders by citing a safeguard clause adopted by the EU in 2004. The clause is designed to allow EU member states to restrict previously approved products in the event that new evidence emerges indicating that the product in question is harmful to either humans or the environment. MON 810 was approved for use by the EU in 1998, and Mengozzi disagreed with applying the clause on the grounds that France imposed its ban without proper European Commission consultation. Though such opinions are not binding, courts typically adopt the stance set forth by advocates general, as the court did here.




Link |  | print | subscribe | RSS feeds | latest newscast | Facebook page

For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...


LATEST LEGAL NEWS

 Hungary prosecutors charge accused Nazi with war crimes
1:19 PM ET, June 18

 ICC grants Kenya VP's request to skip parts of upcoming trial
12:23 PM ET, June 18

 Libya senior judge assassinated outside courthouse
9:29 AM ET, June 18

 click for more...

Get JURIST legal news delivered daily to your e-mail!

LATEST FORUM

Is Egypt's Stance on the Blue Nile Dam Legally Justified?
DOMESTIC
Zeray Yihdego
University of Aberdeen School of Law

ABOUT

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible, ad-free format.

CONTACT

Paper Chase welcomes comments, tips and URLs from readers. E-mail us at JURIST@jurist.org