PAN Europe has won a major victory in court. The highest administrative court in The Netherlands overturned the rejection of our objection to the authorisation of Dagonis, an agricultural fungicide. This came after the European court clarified how pesticide legislation should be applied. The Dutch pesticides administration must now take a new decision, assessing all current scientific information available at the time. This procedure now applies to all EU member states.
Authorisation of the active substance in a pesticide lies with the EU. If that substance is used in a product, the national government decides on authorisation of commercial pesticide formulations containing that active substance. In case of an objection to the admission of a pesticide, the authorities always refer to the previous European assessment. We don't have to do that again,' is then the argument. As a result, objections to a pesticide product have so far had little meaning. Not even if the assessment of the active substance took place many years ago and dangers to health or the environment were demonstrated afterwards.
This must change from now on. Not just in the Netherlands, but in all EU member states. Five years ago, PAN Europe objected to the Dutch authorisation of the fungicide product Dagonis from BASF, which includes the active ingredient Difenoconazole. This is a very problematic substance, which has been on the list of ‘Candidates for Substitution’ for many years. One of the problems is that the substance can interfere with the human hormone system. As a result, even a very small amount can have irreparable effects on the development of a baby or young child.
PAN cited a series of recent scientific findings. The Dutch pesticide authorisation body CTGB felt it did not need to look at them. EFSA already did that before the authorisation in 2008, was their argument. That authorisation expired in 2018. The substance has still not been reassessed, although the authorisation has been extended by one or two years already 6 times. [1] The new assessment is now scheduled for 2026. Meanwhile, we have known about the dangers of the substance for many years. PAN Europe has therefore asked the European Commission several times to withdraw the authorisation pending the new assessment.
After the objection was rejected by CTGB, we went to court. BASF and Ctgb defended their point of view. The judges decided to consult the European Court on whether studies published after authorisation should be looked at. In a landmark ruling in April 2024, the European Court ruled that EU member states must indeed do so, under the European Pesticides Legislation. As a result, the Dutch administrative court now concludes that the Dutch institute Ctgb must take a new decision within six months, taking into account all facts and circumstances at the time of the reconsideration.
“This will be a great help to protect citizens' health and our environment”, says Hans Muilerman, Chemicals officer at PAN Europe. “All EU Member States will now have to evaluate the latest scientific findings and cannot hide behind outdated evaluations anymore.”
Contact:
- Hans Muilerman, hans [at] pan-europe.info
- Tjerk Dalhuisen, tjerk [at] pan-europe.info
Notes:
[1] We also objected to the constant renewal of expired authorisations for substances that pose major health or environmental hazards. See this post.
More information:
- Ruling by the Dutch court, January 16, 2025 (in Dutch, relevant quotes translated below)
- EU Court: member states do not properly carry out pesticide assessments – PAN Europe, April 2024
Relevant quotes from the judgment (translation from Dutch):
‘From the judgment of the Court of Justice follows that the competent authority of a Member State responsible for assessing an application for authorisation to place a plant protection product on the market must, when considering that application, take into account the undesirable effects which the endocrine-disrupting properties of an active substance in that product may have on humans. Thereby, this assessment needs not only take into account certain types of scientific and technical knowledge or the time when such knowledge became available (para 77). The determination of whether an active substance has endocrine-disrupting properties must be made on the basis of all available, relevant and reliable scientific and technical knowledge.’
‘In this case, PAN has (timely) objected to the authorisation decision. This means that the examination of the authorisation application continues until a decision is made on that objection.’
‘In its objection, PAN argued that several studies (among others) show that difenoconazole has endocrine-disrupting properties. The Ctgb did not initially assess this information in the examination of the application for authorisation, because it believed that endocrine-disrupting properties of an active substance should only be assessed at European level when approving that active substance. In the College's view, it is thus established that the contested decision was negligently prepared. The Ctgb's later position - in response to the ECJ's ruling - that the studies cited by PAN are insufficient to identify difenoconazole as endocrine disrupting, is in the opinion of the Board insufficient. If the Ctgb is of the opinion that the studies cited by PAN cannot be regarded as available, relevant and reliable scientific and technical knowledge, it should have given proper and insightful reasons for this.’
‘The conclusion is that the contested decision was insufficiently carefully prepared and unsoundly motivated.’ The Ctgb must issue a new decision within six months, in which ‘the authorisation decision (and the renewal decision) will have to be reconsidered in its entirety, taking into account all the facts and circumstances at the time of the reconsideration.’
