Hautala and Others v. EFSA

Reference :

T-329/17

Complaint date :

May 24, 2017

Status :

Final judgment

Place of jurisdiction :

European Union, Luxembourg

Plaintiffs types :

Politicians

Plaintiffs names :

Heidi Hautala, Benedek Javór, Michèle Rivasi, Bart Staes

Defendants :

EFSA

Lawyers for Health and Environmental Justice :

Bondine Kloostra

Case nature :

EU court

Type(s), Product(s), Active substance(s) :

Herbicide, Glyphosate, Roundup

Requests :

Annul EFSA’s confirmatory decision of 14 March 2017 to refuse most of the documents requested by the applicants; and order EFSA to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Name of the Court :

Court of Justice of Luxembourg, European Union

Jurisdiction level :

Decision date :

March 7, 2019

Decision nature :

Positive

Decision content :

The general court Annuls the decision of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of 14 March 2017, in so far as EFSA refused access to the parts ‘material, experimental conditions and methods’ and ‘results and discussion’ of 12 carcinogenicity studies on the active substance glyphosate; Orders EFSA to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Ms Heidi Hautala, Ms Michèle Rivasi, Mr Benedek Jávor and Mr Bart Staes; Orders Cheminova A/S, Monsanto to bear their own costs.

Legal basis :

Court Ruling :

Link to the ruling

Summary :

05.24.2017, referral to the CJEU on the non-disclosure by the EFSA of the studies on which it relied to conclude that glyphosate was not carcinogenic to humans, contrary to the conclusions of the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The plaintiffs seek to obtain legal clarity on the information that should be made public and on what should legitimately be considered as business confidential information. Aarhus Convention. March 7, 2019, the General Court annuls the contested decision in so far as EFSA refused access to the parts ‘material, experimental conditions and methods’ and ‘results and discussion’ of the requested studies. On the same day, the court takes an identical decision in Case T-716/14.

Scientific references :

No scientifice reference for this case.