Request a copy

Full Text

• In more detail on the EU legislative framework on pesticides, E Bozzini, Pesticide Policy and Politics in the European Union: Regulatory Assessment, Implementation and Enforcement (2017) 5-8.
• European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS), ‘Regulation (EC) 1107/2009 on the Placing of Plant Protection Products on the Market: European Implementation Assessment’ (Study, European Parliament, 2018) date accessed 15 December 2024, Annex III-30-37.
• European Commission, ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for Community action to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides’ COM (2006) 373 final 8-9; and European Commission, ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market’ COM (2006) 388 final 9.
• D Vogel, The Politics of Precaution: Regulating Health, Safety, and Environmental Risks in Europe and the United States (Princeton University Press 2012) 266-271.
• EPRS, ‘Regulation (EC) 1107/2009: European Implementation Assessment’ (n 3); and European Court of Auditors, ‘Special Report: Sustainable use of plant protection products: limited progress in measuring and reducing risks’ (2000) date accessed 4 April 2025.
• In more detail, C Robinson et al ‘Achieving a High Level of Protection from Pesticides in Europe: Problems with the Current Risk Assessment Procedure and Solutions’ (2020) 11[3] European Journal of Risk Regulation 450, 470-471; J Zeitlin et al, ‘Reforming EU Pesticides Regulation, Rebuilding Public Support: Evidence from Survey Experiments in Six Member States’ (2021) Amsterdam Centre for European Studies Research Paper No. 2021/03 date accessed 10 April 2025 9-12; E Hickey and M Weimer, ‘The transparency of EU agency science: Towards a new proactive approach’ (2022) 59[3] Common Market Law Review 673, 674-675; and P Mattioli, ‘Member States’ Discretion in Emergency Pesticide Authorisations: The Role of the EU Principles of Good Administration and the Precautionary Principle in Shaping Better National Administrative Practices’ (2025) 8[1] Nordic Journal of European Law 70, 78-80.
• Notably the reauthorisation of glyphosate has triggered much public attention. For instance, in 2017, more than one million EU citizens signed the European Citizens’ Initiative entitled ‘Ban glyphosate and protect people and the environment from toxic pesticides’, calling for a ban on glyphosate and a reform of the EU pesticide approval process. For more information on the implications of the glyphosate saga, M Morvillo, ‘Glyphosate Effect: Has the Glyphosate Controversy Affected the EU’s Regulatory Epistemology?’ (2020) 11[3] European Journal of Risk Regulation 422; and M Morvillo, ‘From contestation to accountability in EU pesticides regulation? The case of glyphosate’ in A Arcuri and F Coman-Kund, Technocracy and the Law (Routledge 2021) 207-209.
• In more detail, M Morvillo, ‘The General Court Orders Disclosure of Glyphosate-related Scientific Studies: Tweedale, Hautala, and the Concept of Environmental Information in the Context of Plant Protection Products’ (2019) 10[2] European Journal of Risk Regulation 419, 426-427
• Case No. 04307/2020 Municipality of Malles / Walter Alton et al. (Council of State, 2024) ECLI:IT:CDS:2024:915SENT (Italy).
• Case No 236/2019 Municipality of Malles (Regional Administrative Court, autonomous section of Bolzano, 2019) ECLI:IT:TRGABZ:2019:236SENT (Italy)
• The text of the referendum is available at date accessed 15 December 2024.
• Case No. 04307/2020 (n 10), paras 2.2. and 2.3
• More information: date accessed 10 April 2025.
• Case No 236/2019 (n 11).
• Case No. 04307/2020 (n 10), para 1.
• Law No. 131/2003, Disposizioni per l’adeguamento dell’ordinamento della Repubblica alla legge costituzionale 18 ottobre 2001 (2003) Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 132 (Italy).
• Regional Decree of the President of the Region (D.P.Reg.) of 1 February 2005 No. 3/L, Testo unico delle leggi regionali sull’ordinamento dei comuni della Regione Autonoma Trentino-Alto Adige (Italy).
• On the nature and effects of the precautionary principle, see N de Sadeleer, ‘The Precautionary Principle in EC Health and Environmental Law’ (2006) 12 [2] European Law Journal 139, 141-143; and A Donati, Le principe de précaution en droit de l’Union européenne (Bruylant 2021) 199-200.
• Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market [2009] OJ L 309/1; and Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides [2009] OJ L 309/71.
• Regulation 1107/2009 (n 21), art 1(1) and (2).
• EPRS, ‘Regulation (EC) 1107/2009: European Implementation Assessment’ (n 3) 19-23.
• Regulation 1107/2009 (n 21), arts 7, 9, and 11.
• ibid, art 12.
• ibid, art 13 (1).
• ibid, art 13(4).
• A list of the Member States’ competent authorities is available at the following link:
• Regulation 1107/2009 (n 21), arts 29, 36 and 37.
• Directive 2009/128/EC (n 21).
• ibid, arts 4 and 14(4).
• Case No. 04307/2020 (n 10), para 3.
• ibid, para 4.
• ibid, para 13.
• ibid, para 14.
• ibid, paras 18-25.
• ibid, para 19 third subparagraph.
• ibid, para 19.
• ibid, paras 19 third subparagraph and 34 first sentence.
• ibid, paras 21-22.
• Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero della Salute, Piano di Azione Nazionale per l’uso sostenibile dei prodotti fitosanitari (30 January 2014) date accessed 15 December 2024, point A.5.6 (Italy); and Consiglio di Stato, Judgment No 04307/2020 (n 8), para 30.
• Legislative Decree 14 August 2012 No. 150, Attuazione della direttiva 2009/128/CE che istituisce un quadro per l’azione comunitaria ai fini dell’utilizzo sostenibile dei pesticidi (GU n 202 del 30 agosto 2012, Suppl. Ordinario n 177), arts 4 and 15 (Italy).
• Case No. 04307/2020 (n 10), para 31.
• ibid, para 29.
• Case No. 04307/2020 (n 10), para 34; and Regulation 1107/2009 (n 21).
• Case C-26-62 NV Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration [1963] ECLI:EU:C:1963:1.
• Case C-6-64 Flaminio Costa v E.N.E.L. [1964] ECLI:EU:C:1964:66.
• Case C-106/77 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal SpA. [1978] ECLI:EU:C:1978:49.
• Case No. 04307/2020 (n 10), para 34.
• ibid, para 34.
• ibid, para 34 second paragraph.
• Joined Cases C-309/22 and C-310/22 Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) v College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden [2024] ECLI:EU:C:2024:356, para 100.
• ibid, paras 82-83.
• ibid, 83. Same considerations are made by the Advocate General in Joined Cases C-309/22 and C-310/22 Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) v College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden [2023] ECLI:EU:C:2023:717, opinion of AG Medina, para 58.
• Joined Cases C-309/22 and C-310/22 (n 52), para 98.
• P Mattioli, ‘How Can New Scientific and Technical Knowledge Affect the Authorisation of Plant Protection Products at Member State Level? Some Clarifications from the Court of Justice’ (2025) European Journal of Risk Regulation 1.
• Case 308/22 Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) v College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden [2024] ECLI:EU:C:2024:350, para 70.
• ibid, paras 58-61.
• ibid, paras 65-66.
• Case No. 04307/2020 (n 10), para 34.
• For an overview of the development of the primacy doctrine by the Court of Justice, see D Chalmers and A Tomkins, European Union Public Law: Text and Materials (Cambridge University Press 2007) 183-188.
• ME Vergara and G Villalta Puig, ‘The Quiet Architect Finds its Voice: The Primacy of the Law of the European Union after Press Release No 58/20 of the Court of Justice of the European Union’ (2021) 27[4] European Public Law 673, 679. The interplay between the primacy of EU law and the constitutional law of the Member States remains a subject of significant scholarly debate. In this regard, D Sarmiento, ‘Reinforcing the (Domestic) Constitutional Protection of Primacy of EU Law’ (2013) 50[3] Common Market Law Review 875; and M Claes, ‘The Primacy of EU Law in European and National Law’ in D Chalmers and A Arnull (eds), The Oxford Handbook of European Union Law (Oxford University Press 2017).
• While the exact nature and scope of the principle of institutional autonomy of the Member States remain poorly defined compared to the principle of procedural autonomy, increasing reference to the principle of institutional autonomy can be found in the literature. For instance, J Jans et al, Europeanisation of Public Law (Europa Law Publishing 2007) 18; M Verhoeven, ‘The “Costanzo Obligation” and the Principle of National Institutional Autonomy: Supervision as a Bridge to Close the Gap?’ (2010) 3[1] Review of European Administrative Law 23, 24; S Lavrijssen and A Ottow, ‘The Legality of Independent Regulatory Authorities’ in L Besselink, F Pennings and S Prechal (eds), The Eclipse of the Legality Principle in the European Union (Kluwer 2011) 73, 74; A Biondi and G Gentile, ‘National Procedural Autonomy’ in Ruiz Fabri H (ed), Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Procedural Law (Oxford University Press 2019). References can also be found in Advocate General Opinions, for instance, Case C-355/19 Asociaţia ‘Forumul Judecătorilor din România’ and Others [2020] ECLI:EU:C:2020:746, opinion of AG Bobek, para 227. In light of this, this contribution refers to the principle of institutional autonomy (as distinct from procedural autonomy) to emphasise the emerging relationship between EU institutional design obligations and broader institutional aspects related to the internal organisation of the Member States.
• Joined Cases C-51 to 54/71 International Fruit Company NV and others v Produktschap voor groenten en fruit [1971] ECLI:EU:C:1971:128, para. 4.
• For instance, Jans et al (n 63) 18. In the CJUE case law, most recently, Case C-796/19 European Commission v Republic of Austria [2020] ECLI:EU:C:2020:920, paras 60-61.
• D Dimitrakopoulos, ‘The Transposition of EU Law: “PostDecisional Politics” and Institutional Autonomy’ (2001) 7[4] European Law Journal 442, 444.
• R Schütze, European Constitutional Law (2nd ed, Cambridge University Press, 2016) 334.
• S De Somer, ‘The Europeanisation of the Law on National Independent Regulatory Authorities from a Vertical and Horizontal Perspective’ (2102) 5[2] Review of European Administrative Law 93; and P Mattioli, ‘The Quasi-Judicial Role of National Competent Authorities: an Ambiguity that the Principle of Effective Judicial Protection could help address?’ (2024) 17[2] Review of European Administrative Law 99, 101-105.
• S Kadelbach, ‘European Administrative Law and the Law of a Europeanized Administration’ in C Joerges and R Dehousse (eds), Good Governance in Europe’s Integrated Market, Collected Courses of the Academy of European Law (Oxford University Press, 2002) 171.
• This discussion intersects with broader cross-disciplinary debates on how public participation in decision-making could enhance the legitimacy of non-majoritarian institutions at both the national and EU levels. G Majone, ‘The regulatory state and its legitimacy problems’ (1999) 22[1] West European Politics 1, 10; J Mendes, ‘Participation and participation rights in EU law and governance’ in H Hofmann and A Türk (eds), Legal Challenges in EU Administrative Law: Towards an Integrated Administration (Edward Elgar Publishing 2009) 258-262; C Braun and M Busuioc, ‘Stakeholder engagement as a conduit for regulatory legitimacy?’ (2020) 27[11] Journal of European Public Policy 1599; and A Volpato and M Eliantonio, ‘The participation of civil society in ETSI from the perspective of throughput legitimacy’ (2024) 37[5] Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 1375.
• Literature emphasises how specific reforms to decision-making procedures could impact public support for EU pesticide regulation. For instance, Zeitlin et al, ‘Reforming EU Pesticides Regulation, Rebuilding Public Support’ (n 7).
• M Morvillo and M Weimer, ‘Who shapes the CJEU regulatory jurisprudence? On the epistemic power of economic actors and ways to counter it’ (2022) 1[3] European Law Open 510, 514-516. Literature also discusses the regulatory capture of national authorities, ie, national competent authorities responsible for authorising plant protection products are influenced by the pesticide industry’s interests, compromising their ability to maintain an appropriate balance between industry interests and the imperative to protect public health and the environment. For instance, EPRS, ‘Regulation (EC) 1107/2009: European Implementation Assessment’ (n 3) Annex III-18-20; J Beyers and S Arras, ‘Who Feeds Information to Regulators? Stakeholder Diversity in European Union Regulatory Agency Consultations’ (2019) 40[4] Journal of Public Policy 573; and Mattioli, ‘Member States’ Discretion in Emergency Pesticide Authorisations’ (n 7) 80
• D Dimitrakopoulos, ‘The Transposition of EU Law’ (n 66) 444.
• Similarly, EPRS, ‘Regulation (EC) 1107/2009: European Implementation Assessment’ (n 3) Annex-III 100.
• Joined Cases C-309/22 and C-310/22 (n 52).
• On how the involvement of individuals directly impacted by policy outcomes in the decision-making process can enhance both compliance and the democratic legitimacy of the resulting decisions, see M Morvillo, ‘Why Should Citizens Trust EU Regulatory Expertise? Legal Warrants, Science and Politics in EU Food Governance’ in R Barradas de Freitas and S Lo Ioacono (eds), Trust Matters – Cross-Disciplinary Essays (Cheltenham, Hart 2021) 229; A Volpato and A Offermans, ‘Lessons for Participation from an Interdisciplinary Law and Sustainability Science Approach: The Reform of the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive’ (2023) 14[2] European Journal of Risk Regulation 253, 255; and J Zeitlin et al, ‘Governance reforms and public acceptance of regulatory decisions: Cross-national evidence from linked survey experiments on pesticides authorization in the European Union’ (2023) 17 Regulation & Governance 980.