What use for article 95(5) EC?

Journal of Environmental Law

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 267-278

  Fleurke, Floor M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; EUROPEAN COMMISSION; EUROPEAN UNION;

EID: 48949116604     PISSN: 09528873     EISSN: 1464374X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jel/eqn014     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. N DeSadeleer,'Procedures for Derogations from the Principle of Approximation of Laws under Article 95 EC' (2003) 40 CML Rev, 889.
2. Communication of the European Commission concerning Article 95 (paras 4,5 and 6) of the Treaty of the European Community COM(2002)760, consideration 10.
3. Cases C-439/05 P and C-454/05 P Land Oberösterreich and Republic of Austria v Commission, European Court of Justice, 13 September 2007 (hereafter 'Land Oberösterreich'). The full text of the judgment in English is available at: http://curia.europa.eu.
4. [2001] OJ L 106/1.
5. Commission Decision 2003/653/EC, [2003] OJ L 230/34.
6. Joined Cases T-366/03 and T-235/04 Land Oberösterreich and Austria v Commission [2005] ECR II-4005.
7. Land Oberösterreich, (n 3) para 31.
8. Risk assessment means a scientifically based process consisting of four steps: Hazard identification, hazard characterisation, exposure assessment and risk characterisation. Risk management means: The process distinct from risk assessment, of weighing policy alternatives in consultation with interested parties, considering risk assessment and other legitimate factors and, if need be, selecting appropriate prevention and control options.
9. Commission Decision 2003/653/EC (Austria GMOs), (n 5) preamble, paras 32 and 65.
10. S Poli, 'The EU Risk Management of Genetically Modified Organisms and the Commission's Defence Strategy in the Biotech Dispute: Are they inconsistent?' in G Francioni and T Scovazzi (eds), Biotechnology and International Law (Hart Publishing, 2006).
11. Land Oberösterreich, n 3 above, para 63.
12. Article 95(4) states that if, after the adoption by the Council or by the Commission of a harmonisation measure, a Member State deems it necessary to maintain national provisions on grounds of major needs referred to in Article 30, or relating to the protection of the environment or the working environment, it shall notify the Commission of these provisions as well as the grounds for maintaining them.
13. Case C 00/03, Denmark v Commission [2003] ECR I-2643, para 63.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid, para 63-65.
16. P Wennerås, 'Fog and Acid Rain Drifting from Luxembourg over Art.95(4)' (2003) 12(6) European Environmental Law Review 173.
17. Ibid.
18. De Sadeleer (n 1) p 903.
19. The word 'evidence' is less inclusive than'scientific facts' as referred to in subparagraph 3 of Article 95. It is not clear what the difference is between these two definitions and what the implications are, for example for the use of the precautionary principle.
20. Conclusion of Sharpston AG in Case C 439/05 (n 3) para 124. The Court did not comment on this.
21. Case T-182/06 Netherlands v Commission, n.yr., para 65.
22. Case C-512/99 Duitsland v Commission [2005] ECR I-845.
23. Opinion Sharpston AG in Case 439/05 (n 3) para 110.
24. Case T-182/06 Netherlands v Commission (n 21) para 61.
25. Commission Decision 2003/653/EC (Austria GMOs) (n 5) para 36.
26. Land Oberösterreich (n 3) para 65.
27. Commission Decision 2003/653/EC (Austria GMOs) (n 5) para 67.
28. Cases T-366/03 and T-235/04 Land Oberösterreich (n 6) para 62.
29. The Court of Justice in appeal also only mentions the reasons stated in Article 95(5) EC, Land Oberösterreich (n 3) para 31.
30. N de Sadeleer, 'The Precautionary Principle in EC Health and Environmental Law' (2006) 12(2) European Law Journal 139.
31. Commission Decision 2003/653/EC (Austria GMOs) (n 5) para 72.
32. Although the Commission is a bit more liberal in its approach than the Court; in the Creosote Decisions the Commission invoked the precautionary principle in support of its decisions, regarding scientific uncertainty of the scope on the risk - see for example Commission Dec. 2002/59/EC concerning draft national provisions notified by the Kingdom of the Netherlands under Article 95(5) of the EC Treaty on limitations on the marketing and use of creosote-treated wood [2002] OJ L23/37 (Netherlands creosote II).
33. Case C-3/00 Denmark v Commission (n 12).
34. Ibid, para 103.
35. See for instance Case T-74/00 Artegodan GMbH v Commission [2002] ECR II-4945, para 183. Although the Court's emphasis here remains on scientific evidence, the court requires that protective measures may not be based on hypothetical approach to risk and measures have to be based on a risk assessment which is as complete as possible.
36. Wennerås points out that the consequence of this is that a Member State cannot apply the precautionary principle in a way that deviates from the application by the Community legislator (n 16) p 73.
37. COM (2000)1.
38. See for example the Court's reasoning in Case C-473/98 Kemikaleininspektionen v Toolex Alpha AB [2000] ECR 1-05681.
39. Wennerås (n 16) p 175.
40. Cases T-366/03 and T-235/04 Land Oberösterreich, n 6 above, para 41-44.
41. Land Oberösterreich (n 3) para 29.
42. In Denmark v Commission the Court also ruled that the right of hearing and contradiction did not apply to the procedure of Article 95(4), Case C-3/00 Denmark v Commission (n 10).
43. Land Oberösterreich (n 3) para 41.
44. Conclusion of Sharpston AG in Cases C-438/05 P and C-454/05 P (n 3) para 88.
45. Directive 2001/18 on the Deliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms and Repealing Council Directive 90/220/ EEC [2001] OJ 106/1.
46. Under the old Directive 90/220/EEC.
47. Comitology is a procedure through which the Member States can supervise the Commission's exercise of implementing powers.
48. Case C-236/01 Monsanto Agricoltura Italio SPA and Others v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others [2003] ECR I-8105, para 110.
49. European Commission, proposal for a Council Decision concerning the provisional prohibition of the use and sale in Austria of genetically modified maize (Zea mays L. line MON810) pursuant to Directive 2001/18/ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, COM (2007) 586, para 12.
50. Ibid, para 13.
51. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on a request from the Commission related to genetically modified crops (Bt176 maize, MON810 maize, T25 maize, Topas 19/2 oilseed rape and Ms1xRf1 oilseed rape) subject to safeguard clauses invoked according to Article 16 of Directive 90/220/EEC, The EFSA Journal (2006) 338, 1-15.
52. COM (2007) 586 (n 47) para 18.
53. Ibid.
54. This is, after all, in Article 147 EC an acknowledged interest. See also Article 2 EC.