{"id":115040,"date":"2024-07-24T14:19:17","date_gmt":"2024-07-24T12:19:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/eeb.org\/?page_id=115040"},"modified":"2025-10-27T17:04:15","modified_gmt":"2025-10-27T16:04:15","slug":"litigation","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/eeb.org\/de\/work-areas\/agriculture\/litigation\/","title":{"rendered":"Litigation"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Agriculture litigation<\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

T<\/span>he EU\u2019s Common Agricultural <\/span>Policy<\/span>‘s<\/span> failure<\/span> to achieve its environmental <\/span>objectives<\/span> by continuing to drive the further industrialisation and intensification of <\/span>the EU <\/span>agricultur<\/span>al system<\/span> \u2013<\/span> therefore<\/span> harming human health<\/span>, <\/span>driving nature loss <\/span>and\u00a0<\/span>exacerbating<\/span> the<\/span> climate<\/span> crisis <\/span><\/span>\u2013\u00a0is illustrated <\/span>by a growing number of <\/span>legal cases<\/span> across the EU.<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/h4>

Court rulings across the EU are making it increasingly clear: current intensive agricultural practices are causing governments to break the law. From pesticides, to nitrates pollution, courts have found governments to be in breach of EU environmental law \u2013 the objectives of which the Common Agricultural Policy (the CAP) is meant to help achieve. As a result, governments have been compelled to change their approach to nitrates pollution, reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the land use sector and reduce pesticides pollution, outlining the key steps that are needed for the transition towards more sustainable agriculture. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

Whilst such rulings are promising, the current wave of litigation is a yet another sign of a broken system. The CAP makes up approximately a third of the EU budget, and this public money is thrown at a system that fails farmers and leads governments to break the law. CAP money should be used to fund a just transition towards social and environmental sustainability in the farming sector, reducing the need for people to go to court to fight for clean drinking water or protection from dangerous pesticides.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

It is high time to abolish the 2-pillar structure of the CAP and to establish a new major funding instrument for food system transition and sustainable land stewardship: a Common Agricultural, Food and Land Stewardship Policy<\/a>.<\/span> And until that happens litigation will continue to play a vital role in pushing for much-needed change.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\"Conventional\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tWater pollution<\/strong><\/br>\nNitrates and nutrient run <\/br>off pollutes local <\/br>water sources, threatens<\/br>ecosystem and even <\/br>drinking water.\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tIndustrial animal farming<\/strong><\/br>\n\nIntensive animal rearing <\/br>contributes to deforestation, <\/br>greenhouse gas emissions,<\/br> and water and air pollution,<\/br> and reduced animal welfare standards.\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tAir pollution<\/strong><\/br>\nIndustrial level intensive<\/br> farming practices leads<\/br> to substantial air pollution <\/br>through the release of <\/br>ammonia and methane, <\/br>which harm human health <\/br>and contribute to climate change.\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tPesticides<\/strong><\/br>\nExcessive pesticide use<\/br> leads to severe <\/br>environmental damage, <\/br>contaminating soil and<\/br> water, harming non-target species,<\/br> and disrupting ecosystems.\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tBiodiversity loss<\/strong><\/br>\nAgriculture is the main <\/br>driver of biodiversity loss <\/br>in Europe. Habitat loss, <\/br>pollution, monocultures, and<\/br> pesticide use all contribute<\/br> to this decline, from birds <\/br>and insects to microbes <\/br>and fungi.\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\tMore land, more money<\/strong><\/br>\nTo a large extent, <\/br>subsidies from the CAP<\/br> are based on the number of<\/br> hectares a farm has, <\/br>rather than rewarding <\/br>good practice.<\/br> This system means <\/br>that approximately 80% <\/br>of funds go to just 20% of<\/br> farms, driving industrialisation,<\/br> as small farms are<\/br> absorbed by larger ones.\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Why is there a need for litigation?<\/span><\/h3>

Intensive agriculture is the main driver<\/a> of biodiversity loss in Europe, accounts for about 11%<\/a> of the EU\u2019s total GHG emissions and drives pollution. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

The EU\u2019s CAP – a third of the EU\u2019s budget – has been failing to address the sectors\u2019 role in the triple crisis. Instead, it has exacerbated environmental issues, which is likely to worsen following the undemocratic and fast-tracked reform of the CAP in April 2024<\/a>. On top of this, the CAP is also <\/span>failing farmers, who are leaving the sector\u00a0<\/span>en masse<\/i>, protesting for fair food prices and are amongst the first to be hit, and hit hard, by the impact of the climate and biodiversity crisis.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

On paper,\u00a0or rather in la<\/span>w, <\/span><\/span><\/span>the CAP is required to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation, to halting and reversing biodiversity loss, as well as building the \u2018resilience of the agricultural sector<\/a>\u2019.<\/span> To achieve this, EU governments are required to ensure that their national CAP strategic plans contribute to the achievement of and are consistent with core EU environmental law on water, biodiversity, nitrates, air, climate mitigation and pesticides use. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

But the growth of agricultural-related litigation demonstrates that governments are failing to comply with these laws as current agricultural practices, such as industrial volumes of manure-spreading from intensive animal farming, intensive pesticide use, and an over-production of meat and dairy products are driving non-compliance.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Driving change in the agricultural sector\u00a0<\/span><\/h3>

EU environmental law is a common thread in cases being fought in national courts across the EU. This means that a ruling in a German court can inform cases in other EU countries and serves as a warning to other governments in breach of EU environmental law.<\/p>

The EU laws which link the various cases across Europe illustrate the potential for cases to be replicated. On this page, we seek to highlight a few examples of such cases. Each case has the potential to help drive change in the agricultural sector and further highlight the urgency, necessity and legal obligations to transition the EU\u2019s approach to agricultural policy.<\/p><\/div>

Get in touch<\/h3>

If you are involved in agriculture litigation and\/or are interested in exploring whether a similar case could be brought to a court in your country, please reach out<\/a>!<\/span><\/span><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Court cases across Europe<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPollution cases<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tClimate cases<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCAP cases<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t Nature cases<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Cases on pollution<\/a><\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"pesticide\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Justice pour le vivant, France<\/span><\/h3>

Significant loopholes in the French authorisation process for pesticides led five NGOs to take legal action to ensure the real, and devastating, effects of pesticide products are taken into account during state assessment. A partial success with proceedings still ongoing.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/i><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/i><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCase details<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t

Tribunal Administratif de Paris, 29 June 2023\u00a0<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/p>

Court<\/strong>: Administrative Court of Paris and Administrative Court of Appeal of Paris<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

Case reference<\/strong>: N\u00b02200534\/4-1<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>

Country<\/strong>: <\/span><\/span>France<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

NGO involved<\/strong>: POLLINIS, Notre Affaire \u00e0 Tous, Biodiversit\u00e9 sous nos pieds, ANPER-TOS, ASPAS\u00a0<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>

Filing date<\/strong>: <\/span><\/span>10 January 2022<\/span><\/span><\/p>

Decision date: <\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/span>29 June 2023<\/span> (appeal pending)<\/span><\/p>

Target<\/strong>: French government<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>

Main law<\/strong>: EU Regulation 1107\/2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (Art.4(3))\u00a0<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>

Process<\/span><\/span><\/strong>: <\/span>National litigation<\/span>; <\/span>Claim for environmental damages<\/span><\/p>

Issue<\/strong>:<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>Whether France\u2019s pesticides authorisation procedure is adequate to assess the effects of pesticides on the environment and meets <\/span>the <\/span>Reg<\/span>ulation<\/span> 1107\/2009 Art.4 criteria<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

Summary<\/strong>\u00a0<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

Argument<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

In an action for damages, the five NGOs argued that the French authorisation process for pesticide products has significant loopholes and is therefore in breach of Art.4 of Regulation 1107\/2009 and the precautionary principle. The aim of the case is to force the state to review the risk assessment procedure to take into account all the real effects of pesticide products, including chronic effects, cocktail effects, sublethal effects and indirect effects.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

In addition, the group argued that the state\u2019s own target to reduce pesticides use by 50% by 2018 was not met and that the state failed to comply with the Water Framework Directive (WFD) by inadequately protecting groundwater and freshwater and thereby failing to meet the objectives of the WFD.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

Ruling<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

The Administrative Court of Paris recognised the existence of ecological damage stemming from the widespread contamination of water, soil and air through pesticides and the resulting biodiversity decline. It also recognised flaws in the procedure for evaluating and authorising the marketing of pesticides, in breach of the precautionary principle.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

The Court found the state in breach of its pesticide reduction target and in breach of the WFD by inadequately protecting groundwater from pesticides. It therefore ordered the state to take all necessary measures to meet the pesticide reduction targets, to take measures to restore the ecological damage caused, and to protect and restore groundwater from the effects of pesticides and their residues. However, the court did not find the state to be in breach of the WFD for its failure to meet the Directive\u2019s objectives as it found the use of derogations to be justified.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

Despite recognising a direct causal link between the inadequacies in the risk assessment and biodiversity decline, the Court did not order the state to review the risk assessment methodologies, holding that it cannot be established with certainty that a better risk assessment would make it possible to significantly modify the number or nature of pesticides placed on the market. The five NGOs are therefore appealing on this point.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

Phyteis, the agrochemical lobby in France, has intervened to support the French state on appeal \u2013 as they already did at first instance. They are seeking to protect the status quo of inaction of the state, at the expense of biodiversity and human health.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/i><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/i><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCase details<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t

Tribunal Administratif de Paris, 29 June 2023\u00a0<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/p>

Court<\/strong>: Administrative Court of Paris and Administrative Court of Appeal of Paris<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

Case reference<\/strong>: N\u00b02200534\/4-1<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>

Country<\/strong>: <\/span><\/span>France<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

NGO involved<\/strong>: POLLINIS, Notre Affaire \u00e0 Tous, Biodiversit\u00e9 sous nos pieds, ANPER-TOS, ASPAS\u00a0<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>

Filing date<\/strong>: <\/span><\/span>10 January 2022<\/span><\/span><\/p>

Decision date: <\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/span>29 June 2023<\/span> (appeal pending)<\/span><\/p>

Target<\/strong>: French government<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>

Main law<\/strong>: EU Regulation 1107\/2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (Art.4(3))\u00a0<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>

Process<\/span><\/span><\/strong>: <\/span>National litigation<\/span>; <\/span>Claim for environmental damages<\/span><\/p>

Issue<\/strong>:<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>Whether France\u2019s pesticides authorisation procedure is adequate to assess the effects of pesticides on the environment and meets <\/span>the <\/span>Reg<\/span>ulation<\/span> 1107\/2009 Art.4 criteria<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

Summary<\/strong>\u00a0<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

Argument<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

In an action for damages, the five NGOs argued that the French authorisation process for pesticide products has significant loopholes and is therefore in breach of Art.4 of Regulation 1107\/2009 and the precautionary principle. The aim of the case is to force the state to review the risk assessment procedure to take into account all the real effects of pesticide products, including chronic effects, cocktail effects, sublethal effects and indirect effects.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

In addition, the group argued that the state\u2019s own target to reduce pesticides use by 50% by 2018 was not met and that the state failed to comply with the Water Framework Directive (WFD) by inadequately protecting groundwater and freshwater and thereby failing to meet the objectives of the WFD.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

Ruling<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

The Administrative Court of Paris recognised the existence of ecological damage stemming from the widespread contamination of water, soil and air through pesticides and the resulting biodiversity decline. It also recognised flaws in the procedure for evaluating and authorising the marketing of pesticides, in breach of the precautionary principle.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

The Court found the state in breach of its pesticide reduction target and in breach of the WFD by inadequately protecting groundwater from pesticides. It therefore ordered the state to take all necessary measures to meet the pesticide reduction targets, to take measures to restore the ecological damage caused, and to protect and restore groundwater from the effects of pesticides and their residues. However, the Court did not find the state to be in breach of the WFD for its failure to meet the Directive\u2019s objectives as it found the use of derogations to be justified. <\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

Despite recognising a direct causal link between the inadequacies in the risk assessment and biodiversity decline, the Court did not order the state to review the risk assessment methodologies, holding that it cannot be established with certainty that a better risk assessment would make it possible to significantly modify the number or nature of pesticides placed on the market. The five NGOs are therefore appealing on this point.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

Phyteis, the agrochemical lobby in France, has intervened to support the French state on appeal \u2013 as they already did at first instance. They are seeking to protect the status quo of inaction of the state, at the expense of biodiversity and human health.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/i><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/i><\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDocuments<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t