Niveau juridique : Union européenne
Question pour réponse écrite à la commission de roberta Metsola (PPE), posée le 17 septembre 2018
Texte de la question,
« The Court of Justice of the EU has decided, in Case C-528/16 Confédération paysanne and Others v Premier ministre and Ministre de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt, that organisms obtained by new mutagenesis techniques should be considered as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and fall under EC laws on GMOs. Judges said that although the GMO Directive does not apply to some techniques, ‘those which have conventionally been used in a number of applications and have a long safety record’ can be covered by the directive.
Can the Commission provide information on whether it considers it necessary to amend the GMO Directive to reflect this recent judgment of the European Court of Justice? »
Réponse donnée par Mr Andriukaitis au nom de la Commission européenne
« In Case C-528/16(1) referred to by the Honourable Member, the Court of Justice of the EU stated that:
1 Directive 2001/18/EC(2) is applicable to organisms obtained by those mutagenesis techniques that have emerged since its adoption.
2. Directive 2001/18/EC does not apply to organisms obtained by means of certain mutagenesis techniques, namely those that have conventionally been used in a number of applications and have a long safety record. Member States can subject such organisms to the obligations such as those laid down by Directive 2001/18/EC or to other obligations, in compliance with EC law in particular the rules on the free movement of goods.
The clarification provided by the Court is binding and does not require amending Directive 2001/18/EC. The Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, is currently working to ensure the correct implementation of the judgment.
(2) Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p. 1-39. »
Lien vers la question ici