In Xylella II the CJEU was called upon to assess whether Italy had failed to meet the obligations stemming from the Plant Health Directive and Decision 2015/789/EU, aiming to inhibit the spread of the plant pathogen Xylella fastidiosa in Apulia (Southern Italy). In carrying out its review, the Court relied to a large extent on the scientific evidence submitted by the Commission. It found that the Member State had failed to properly remove infected plants and monitor the presence of the pathogen in the 20km strip dividing the infected zone from the buffer zone. However, the Court also confirmed that in proceedings brought under Article 258, the burden of proof lies on the Commission, which may not rely on any presumption to demonstrate the State’s failure to meet EU law obligations. The Italian authorities are now expected to comply with the Court’s ruling, as financial sanctions may be imposed at a later stage.

In July 2018 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that organisms obtained from most New Plant Breeding Technologies (NPBT) fulfil the requirements of the GMO definition of Directive 2001/18. Practically, organisms created with NPBT have since been legally treated as GMOs. While we do not seek to contest the judgment in itself, in the present contribution we draw attention to the effects of such a categorisation from the perspective of communication science. Extrapolating from communication research conducted in adjacent technology domains, we will argue that by putting organisms obtained from NPBT semantically in the same basket as GMOs may carry a serious risk – transferring analogous communication problems that GMOs encountered in the past, to organisms obtained from NPBT, while they may not address similar risks. Possible consequences such as these can hardly be considered at the stage of legal interpretation (such as with the CJEU). Rather, as discussion now unfolds whether and how to change the legal definition, insights from communication science and risk perception research on the effect of such a definition should be taken into account.

This article reports on and discusses the findings of the first systematic study on Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) reforms in developing and transition economies. The macro part of the study reveals that between 2001 and 2016 60 such reforms were launched in total, with 20 of them leading to functional RIA systems two years or more after they were initiated. Appropriate and complete reform design, analysed by measuring compliance with six internationally recognised “good practices”, is found to be a necessary but not sufficient condition for early success. To develop a better understanding of challenging factors for RIA reforms’ success the micro part of the investigation analyses four case studies (Botswana, Cambodia, Kenya and Uganda). Findings point to the importance of donor flexibility and patience and the need for building reform constituencies inside and outside government. The traditional orthodoxy of regulatory impact assessment reforms as an extension of red tape reduction is challenged. The article finally presents several possible policy implications of the findings.

On 14 November 2018, Poland’s Ministry for Agriculture and Rural Development notified the European Commission (hereinafter, Commission) of its intention to introduce mandatory country of origin labelling (hereinafter, COOL) for potatoes on the basis of a Draft Regulation of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development amending the Regulation on the labelling of certain foodstuffs (hereinafter, Draft Regulation).1 Poland’s notification is the most recent example of the continuously increasing number of EU Member States’ measures on COOL for foodstuffs. While the EU already provides COOL requirements for fruits and vegetables in Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors2 (hereinafter, Regulation (EU) No 543/2011), they do not apply to fresh potatoes.