Genomeditierung ist Gentechnik
Eine kritische Analyse des EuGH-Urteils Confédération paysanne u.a.
On July 25, 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), sitting in a Grand Chamber, rendered its highly controversial judgment in the case C-528/16, Confédération paysanne and Others. In light of the CJEU’s reasoning, genome-edited organisms are, without exemption, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) within the meaning of Directive 2001/18/EC and, therefore, ultimately, governed by the EU’s entire regulatory framework for GMOs. The fundamental source for an in-depth understanding of the Court’s reasoning is not the Advocate General’s opinion, which theCourt blatantly dismissed, but the preliminary reference by the FrenchConseil d’État. In particular, theCJEUadopted the Conseil d‘État’s assumptions of risks arising allegedly from genome editing techniques, which, in turn, prompted the Court to apply the precautionary principle. The Court is to be criticized, inter alia, for not having impugned and scrutinized the alleged risks and for having applied the precautionary principle in disregard of its own case-law. Eventually, it is, by now, the Union legislator’s task to decide on whether genome-edited organisms should be governed or, rather, exempted, at least in part, from the EU’s legal framework on GMOs in order to avoid transatlantic trade conflicts and to ensure the competitivenes especially of small and medium-sized plant and animal breeders in Europe.
| Copyright: | © Lexxion Verlagsgesellschaft mbH | |
| Quelle: | EurUp 02/2019 (Mai 2019) | |
| Seiten: | 10 | |
| Preis inkl. MwSt.: | € 32,00 | |
| Autor: | ||
Artikel weiterleiten  | In den Warenkorb legen
| Artikel kommentieren |
Diese Fachartikel könnten Sie auch interessieren:
All About That Risk? A (Re-)Assessment of the CJEU’s Reasoning in the “Genome Editing” Case
© Lexxion Verlagsgesellschaft mbH (5/2019)
Der Europäische Gerichtshof hat mit Urteil vom 25.7.2018 (Rs. C‑528/16) entschieden, dass Organismen, deren Erbgut mit Verfahren der sog. ortsspezifischen Mutagenese verändert wurde, dem europäischen Gentechnikrecht unterfallen. Die Entscheidung und ihre Konsequenzen sind seitdem Gegenstand reger Auseinandersetzungen.
CRISPR-Plants & Co. – the Quest for Adequate Risk Regulation
© Lexxion Verlagsgesellschaft mbH (11/2017)
Modern Plant Breeding Techniques and the Current Legal Framework for Risk Regulation in the European Union
What Price Flexibility? – The Recent Commission Proposal to Allow for National “Opt-Outs” on GMO Cultivation under the Deliberate Release Directive and the Comitology Reform Post-Lisbon
© Lexxion Verlagsgesellschaft mbH (12/2010)
“After a reform is before another reform.” This paraphrasing of a famous saying from the world of football seems to be a very fitting way to describe the status quo of the European policy on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The functioning of the EU legal framework on GMOs has since its initial establishment in the 1990s been troubled by political disagreement, deadlocks in decision-making, strong public opposition in the Member States, and considerable delays in the process of authorisation of genetically engineered products on the internal market of the EU.
The New Strategy on Coexistence in the 2010 European Commission Recommendation
© Lexxion Verlagsgesellschaft mbH (12/2010)
The European Union tried to establish a “coexistence” policy for the cultivation and processing of GM and non-GM products after the political agreement that put an end to the 1999-2004 moratorium. Consequently, coexistence is part of this gentlemen’s agreement between States with pro and anti-GMO positions.
EU GM Crop Regulation: A Road to Resolution or a Regulatory Roundabout?
© Lexxion Verlagsgesellschaft mbH (12/2010)
Since first embarking on the road of risk management options for the regulation of recombinant DNA (rDNA) activities and use in 1978, the European Union (EU) has largely failed to create a regulatory and policy environment regarding genetically modified (GM) crops and their cultivation that is (a) efficient, (b) predicable, (c) accountable, (d) durable or (e) interjurisdictionally aligned.
