Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T19:30:02.969Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Handling Uncertain Risks: An Inconsistent Application of Standards?

The Precautionary Principle in Court Revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Anne-May J.P. Janssen  and
Nele F. Rosenstock
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The problematic application of the precautionary principle by the European Courts has led Janssen and Van Asselt to identify patterns and inconsistencies in the Courts’ use of the principle. As a consequence, the principle runs the risk of becoming an empty tool. This paper examines new case law to determine whether these patterns have continued in the rulings of the Courts and discusses what can be done to stop the degradation of the precautionary principle.

Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 144 - 154
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Annex 1 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, Principle 15, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I), 12 August 1992, available on the Internet at: <http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm> (last accessed 10 October 2013).

2 Van Asselt, Marjolein B.A. and Vos, Ellen, “The Precautionary Principle and the Uncertainty Paradox”, 9 Journal of Risk Research (2006), pp. 313 et sqq. CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Van Asselt, Marjolein B.A., and Vos, Ellen, “Wrestling with uncertain risks: EU regulation of GMOs and the uncertainty paradox”, 11 Journal of Risk Research, pp. 281 et sqq CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Janssen, Anne-May and Van Asselt, Marjolein B.A., “The Precautionary Principle in Court – An Analysis of Post-Pfizer Case Law”, in Van Asselt, Marjolein B.A., Versluis, Esther and Vos, Ellen (eds.), Balancing between trade and risk: Integrating legal and social science perspectives (London, UK: Routledge, 2013), pp. 197 et sqq., at p. 19Google Scholar7.

4 Van Asselt, Marjolein B.A., Vos, Ellen and Rooijackers, Bram, “Science, Knowledge and Uncertainty in EU Risk Regulation”, in Everson, Michelle and Vos, Ellen (eds.), Uncertain Risks Regulated: Facing the Unknown in National, EU and International Law (London and New York: Routledge, 2009), pp. 1 et sqq. Google Scholar; For an elaborate analysis of the differences between ‘risks’ and ‘uncertain risks’, see Van Asselt, Vos and Rooijackers, 2009, supra note 6, at p. 360-365.

5 Van Asselt, Vos and Rooijackers, “Science, Knowledge and Uncertainty in EU Risk Regulation”, supra note 4, at p. 359.

6 Van Asselt and Vos, “The Precautionary Principle and the Uncertainty Paradox”, supra note 2, at p. 313-336.

7 Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle, COM(2000)1 final.

8 Fisher, Elizabeth C. and Harding, Ronnie, “The precautionary principle and administrative constitutionalism: the development of frameworks for applying the precautionary principle”, in Fisher, Elizabeth C., Jones, Judith and von Schomberg, René (eds.), Implementing the precautionary principle (Cornwall: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2006), at pp. 113–137 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Janssen and Van Asselt, “The Precautionary Principle in Court - An Analysis of Post-Pfizer Case Law”, supra note 3.

10 Percival, Robert V., “‘Who's afraid of the Precautionary Principle?’”, 23 Pace Environmental Law Review (2005), p. 1 et sqq Google Scholar.; Sandin, Per, “The Precautionary Principle and Food Safety”, 1 Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (2006), at pp. 2–4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Communication on the Precautionary Principle, supra note 7, at p. 14.

12 For an elaborate argumentation see: Van Asselt and Vos, “The Precautionary Principle and the Uncertainty Paradox”, supra note 2.

13 Ibid.

14 Alberto Alemanno, “The Shaping of the Precautionary Principle by European Courts: From Scientific Uncertainty to Legal Certainty”, in Lorenzo Cuocolo and Luca Luparia (eds), Valori Costituzionale e Nuovo Politiche Del Diritto, Cahiers Europèens, Halley, Bocconi Legal Studies Research Paper (2007) 1007404, at p. 13.

15 Van Asselt and Vos, “The Precautionary Principle and the Uncertainty Paradox”, supra note 2; Janssen and Van Asselt, “The Precautionary Principle in Court - An Analysis of Post-Pfizer Case Law”, supra note 5; Alberto Alemanno, “The Shaping of European Risk Regulation by Community Courts” 18/08 Jean Monnet Working Paper (2008), pp. 1 et sqq., available on the Internet at <http://ssrn.com/abstract=1325770> (last accessed on 2 March 2013); Alberto Alemanno, “Case C-79/09, Gowan Comércio Internacional e Servicos Lda v. Ministero della Salute, Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 December 2010”, 48 Common Market Law Review (2011), pp. 1329 et sqq.

16 Case T-13/99, Pfizer Animal Health SA v. Council of the European Union [2002], ECR II-03305.

17 Alemanno, “Case C-79/09, Gowan Comércio Internacional e Servicos Lda v. Ministero della Salute, Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 December 2010”, supra note 15; Van Asselt and Vos, “The Precautionary Principle and the Uncertainty Paradox”, supra note 2; Rogers, Michael D., “Risk management and the record of the precautionary principle in EU case law”, 14 Journal of Risk Research (2011), pp. 467 et sqq CrossRefGoogle Scholar.; Vos, Ellen, “EU risk regulation reviewed by the European Courts” in van Asselt, Marjolein B.A., Everson, Michelle and Vos, Ellen (eds.), Trade, Health and the Environment: The European Union Put to the Test (New York, Routledge, 2014), p. 213 et sqq Google Scholar.

18 Vos, “EU risk regulation reviewed by the European Courts”, supra note 17, at p. 219

19 Janssen and Van Asselt, “The Precautionary Principle in Court - An Analysis of Post-Pfizer Case Law”, supra note 3.

20 Ibid.

21 For an elaborate analysis of the tensions and patterns see Janssen and Van Asselt, “The Precautionary Principle in Court - An Analysis of Post-Pfizer Case Law”, supra note 3.

22 Chalmers, Damian, Monti, Giorgio and Davies, Gareth, European Union Law: Cases and Materials, (2nd, rev. ed.), (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), at p. 898CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vos, “EU risk regulation reviewed by the European Courts”, supra note 17.

23 Ibid., at p. 214.

24 Vos, “EU risk regulation reviewed by the European Courts”, supra note 17, at p. 226, see also: Scott, and Sturm, , “Courts as catalysts: Rethinking the judicial role in new governance”, 13 Columbia Journal of European Law (2006), at p. 571 and at p. 593Google Scholar.

25 Janssen and Van Asselt, “The Precautionary Principle in Court - An Analysis of Post-Pfizer Case Law”, supra note 3; Vos, EU risk regulation reviewed by the European Courts, supra note 17; Alemanno, “The Shaping of European Risk Regulation by Community Courts”, supra note 15; Michael D. Rogers, “Risk management and the record of the precautionary principle in EU case law”, supra note 17.

26 Janssen and Van Asselt, “The Precautionary Principle in Court - An Analysis of Post-Pfizer Case Law, supra note 3; Case T-74/00, Artegodan GmbH v. Commission of the European Communities [2002] ECR II-04945.

27 Janssen and Van Asselt, “The Precautionary Principle in Court - An Analysis of Post-Pfizer Case Law”, supra note 3.

28 Ibid.

29 Janssen and Van Asselt, “The Precautionary Principle in Court - An Analysis of Post-Pfizer Case Law”, supra note 3, at p. 207.

30 Ibid.

31 Ibid.

32 Alemanno, “The Shaping of European Risk Regulation by Community Courts”, supra note 15.

33 Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition

34 Janssen and Van Asselt, “The Precautionary Principle in Court - An Analysis of Post-Pfizer Case Law, supra note 3, at p. 213.

35 Ibid.

36 Janssen and Van Asselt, “The Precautionary Principle in Court - An Analysis of Post-Pfizer Case Law, supra note 3, at p. 213.

37 Ibid.

38 Ibid.

39 Ibid.

40 Janssen and Van Asselt, “The Precautionary Principle in Court - An Analysis of Post-Pfizer Case Law”, supra note 3.

41 Case C-77/09, Gowan Comércio Internacional e Serviços Lda v. Ministero della Salute [2010] ECR I-13533.

42 Case C-77/09, Gowan Comércio, supra note 41, at para. 34.

43 Ibid., paras. 34-36.

44 Ibid., at para. 37.

45 Commission Directive 2006/134/EC of 11 December 2006 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include fenarimol as active substance Text with EEA relevance, OJ L 349, p. 32–36; Case C-77/09, Gowan Comércio, supra note 41, at para 43.

46 Ibid., paras. 34, 38, 62.

47 Ibid., at para. 41.

48 Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen in Case-77/09 Gowan Comércio Internacional e Serviços Lda v. Ministero della Salute [2010], ECR I-13533, available on the Internet at: <http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30db6150ae1f124b4c058521df228d168146.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxuLaxr0?text=&docid=78679&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=3469612> (last accessed on 5 May 2013), at para. 71.

49 Case C-343/09, Afton Chemical Limited v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] ECR I-07027.

50 Case C-343/09, Afton Chemical, supra note 49, at para. 6.

51 Ibid., at para. 3.

52 Ibid., at para. 4.

53 Directive 2009/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 98/70/EC as regards the specification of petrol, diesel and gas-oil and introducing a mechanism to monitor and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and amending Council Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the specification of fuel used by inland waterway vessels and repealing Directive 93/12/EEC, OJ L 140, at pp. 88 et sqq.

54 Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Council Directive 93/12/EEC, OJ L 350, at p. 58 et sqq.

55 Case C-343/09, Afton Chemical, supra note 49, at para. 7.

56 Ibid., at para. 9.

57 Case 558/07, The Queen, on the application of S.P.C.M. SA, C.H. Erbslöh KG, Lake Chemicals and Minerals Ltd and Hercules Inc. v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2009] ECR I-05783.

58 Case C-558/07, S.P.C.M., supra note 57, at para. 9.

59 Ibid.

60 Ibid., paras. 3-4, see also: Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, at Recital 1.

61 Ibid., at para. 5, see also: Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (Text with EEA relevance), at para. 19.

62 Ibid., at para. 16.

63 Ibid., at para. 38.

64 Case T-75/06, Bayer CropScience AG, Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV, Alfa Georgika Efodia AEVE and Aragonesas Agro, SA v Commission of the European Communities [2008] ECR II-02081.

65 Case T-75/06, Bayer CropScience AG, supra note 64, at para. 23.

66 Ibid., at para. 171.

67 Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, OJ L 230, p. 1-32.

68 Case T-75/06, Bayer CropScience AG, supra note 64, paras. 126-128, 228.

69 Ibid., at para. 126.

70 Ibid., paras. 3-4.

71 Ibid., at para. 24.

72 Ibid., at para. 30.

73 Ibid., at para. 31.

74 Ibid., at para. 35.

75 Ibid., at para. 39.

76 Ibid., at para. 40.

77 Ibid., at para. 259.

78 Ibid.

79 Case C-343/09, Afton Chemical, supra note 49, paras. 44, 51.

80 Ibid., at para. 58.

81 Opinion Advocate General Kokott in Case C-558/07 The Queen, on the application of Afton Chemical Limited v Secretary of State for Transport [2009] ECR I-05783. Available on the Internet at http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf?doclang=EN&text=&pageIndex=0&part=1&mode=DOC&docid=77516&occ=first&dir=&cid=765456 (last accessed on 5 May 2013), at para. 38.

82 Case T-75/06, Bayer CropScience AG, supra note 64, at para. 257.

83 Janssen and Van Asselt, “The Precautionary Principle in Court - An Analysis of Post-Pfizer Case Law, supra note 3, at p. 208.

84 Case C-558/07, S.P.C.M., supra note 57, paras. 50-51.

85 Ibid., para. 6

86 Case C-77/09, Gowan Comércio, supra note 41, para 60.

87 Case C-343/09, Afton Chemical, supra note 49, para. 59.

88 Ibid., paras. 58-59.

89 Ibid., at para. 48.

90 Ibid., at paras. 48-53.

91 Ibid., at para. 61.

92 Case T-75/06, Bayer CropScience AG, supra note 64, at para. 228.

93 Ibid., at para. 128.

94 Case T-75/06, Bayer CropScience AG, supra note 64, at para. 128.

95 Case C-77/09, Gowan Comércio, supra note 41, at para. 76.

96 Case C-77/09, Gowan Comércio, supra note 41, at para. 78.

97 Ibid., at para. 79.

98 Case T-75/06, Bayer CropScience AG, supra note 64, at para. 247.

99 Ibid., at para. 257.

100 Ibid., at para. 247.

101 Ibid., para. 256.

102 Janssen and Van Asselt, “The Precautionary Principle in Court - An Analysis of Post-Pfizer Case Law, supra note 5, at p. 216.

103 Janssen and Van Asselt, “The Precautionary Principle in Court - An Analysis of Post-Pfizer Case Law, supra note 3, at p. 216.

104 Case C-558/07, S.P.C.M., supra note 57, at para. 2.

105 Ibid., para. 42; also: Case C-343/09, Afton Chemical, supra note 49, at para. 46, also: Case C-77/09, Gowan Comércio, supra note 41, at para. 82.

106 Case C-343/09, Afton Chemical, supra note 49, at para. 33.

107 Ibid., paras. 28, 33, 46; see also: Case C-558/07, S.P.C.M., supra note 57, paras. 2, 42; also: Case T-75/06, Bayer CropScience AG, supra note 64, paras. 82, 88, 108, 196, 224.

108 Case C-77/09, Gowan Comércio, supra note 41, paras. 3, 46 - 62.

109 Alemanno, “Case C-79/09, Gowan Comércio Internacional e Servicos Lda v. Ministero della Salute, Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 December 2010”, supra note 15, at p. 1330.

110 Ibid., at p. 1329.

111 Ibid., at p. 1344.

112 Ibid., at p. 1345.

113 C-326/05 P Industrias Químicas del Vallés v Commission [2007], Judgement of 18 July 2007, ECR I-6557.

114 Case T-75/06, Bayer CropScience AG, supra note 64, at para. 219.

115 Case C-343/09, Afton Chemical, supra note 49, paras. 36, 60; CFI, Case T-75/06, Bayer CropScience AG, supra note 64, at para. 226.

116 Case T-75/06, Bayer CropScience AG, supra note 64, at para. 226.

117 Ibid., paras. 149-152, 159-192.

118 Ibid., at para. 86.

119 Case C-343/09, Afton Chemical, supra note 49, at para. 41.

120 Communication on the Precautionary Principle, supra note 7, at p. 4

121 Case C-174/05 Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie and Natuur en Milieu [2006] ECR I-2443, para. 28 and the case-law cited.

122 Case C-77/09, Gowan Comércio, supra note 41, paras. 38, 69-71; see also: Case T-75/06, Bayer CropScience AG, supra note 64, paras. 31, 237.

123 Case C-343/09, Afton Chemical, supra note 49, at para. 55.

124 Ibid., at para. 68.

125 Ibid., paras. 3, 48, 87.

126 Case C-77/09, Gowan Comércio, supra note 41, paras. 62-64.

127 Stokes, Elen, “The EC courts’ contribution to refining the parameters of precaution”, 11(4) Journal of Risk Research, pp. 491 et sqq., at pp. 498 - 499CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

128 Stokes, “The EC courts’ contribution to refining the parameters of precaution”, supra note 127, at p. 503 - 504.

129 Alemanno, “The Shaping of European Risk Regulation by Community Courts”, supra note 15.

130 Janssen and Van Asselt, “The Precautionary Principle in Court - An Analysis of Post-Pfizer Case Law”, supra note 3, at p. 216.

131 Communication on the Precautionary Principle, supra note 7, p. 4.

132 Alemanno, “Case C-79/09, Gowan Comércio Internacional e Servicos Lda v. Ministero della Salute, Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 December 2010”, supra note 15, p. 1330.

133 Ibid., at p. 1335.

134 Janssen and Van Asselt, “The Precautionary Principle in Court - An Analysis of Post-Pfizer Case Law, supra note 3, at p. 210.

135 Ibid, at p. 214.