In June 2012, the European Commission authorized the placing of products containing genetically modified soy beans on the market. The decision was taken based on an opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), concluding that the modified soybeans were as safe as their non-genetically modified counterparts with regard to their effects on human and animal health as well as on the environment. However, three German NGOs considered that the authorisation was flawed and made use of their rights provided under the Aarhus Convention. They asked the Commission to conduct an internal review of the authorisation decision. Claiming that the allegations submitted in support of their application were not sufficiently substantiated, the European Commission rejected the request. The organisations subsequently applied to the European Court of Justice, which had to rule on the legality of the decision rejecting the request for review.
In its judgment, the Court confirmed the decision to reject the request for internal review and also rejected the organisations’ appeal. While the NGOs did not succeed with their claim, the case is interesting in other respects. It was the first time that the Court of First Instance had ruled on a decision adopted by the Commission on the substance of the authorization of GMOs after a request for an internal review made based on the Aarhus Regulation. The appeal thus provided the Tribunal with an opportunity to identify two important elements. On the one hand, it allowed to clarify the procedure for NGOs to submit a request for internal review to a Community institution or body which had adopted an administrative act in Environmental law under the Regulations. Thus, by accepting to rule on this appeal, the Court of First Instance accepted that the decision by which the Commission rejects a request for internal review is open to appeal under certain conditions. Above all, the Court's judgment is interesting because it allows to specify the scope of the acts which may be subject to a request for internal review. According to the Aarhus Regulation, these are administrative acts adopted under environmental law. The Court considers that decisions on the authorization of GMOs, even if they are not intended for cultivation, are administrative acts adopted under environmental law. They may therefore be the subject of a request for internal review by NGOs. On the other hand, the application gave the Court of First Instance an opportunity to clarify the nature of the judicial review of the decision rejecting the request for internal review. Contrary to the Commission's arguments, the Court considers that this decision should not be subject to a limited review but to a normal review.
