EU Plant Protection Products: Key Regulatory, Transparency and Judicial Review Developments in 2025–2026
At theCrop Protection Regulatory Conference, taking place Sept. 8–9, 2026, in Brussels, Claudio Mereu of Bird & Bird will provide a focused review of some of the most significant 2025–2026 EU and Member State case law concerning plant protection products and pesticides, with particular attention to the precautionary principle, scientific assessment, renewal and non-renewal of active substances, national product authorizations, transparency and access to documents, and the growing role of judicial review in regulatory decision-making.
Recent litigation before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the General Court has significantly clarified the boundaries of regulatory discretion under Regulation 1107/2009. The CJEU judgment in PAN Europe v Commission(C-316/24 P) concerning cypermethrinprovides important guidance on risk assessment, risk management, and the precautionary principle, particularly on the evidential basis required where regulatory authorities rely on risk-mitigation measures. The General Court judgments of 19 November 2025 concerning dimoxystrobin(T-412/22), boscalid(T-94/23), and glyphosate(T-565/23) further examine the legal constraints surrounding extensions of active-substance approval under Article 17while renewal procedures remain pending.
The mancozeblitigation (T-742/20 RENV, judgment of 29 October 2025) provides an important complementary perspective on the judicial review of an active-substance non-renewal decision. The General Court initially dismissed the action brought by UPL Europe and Indofil Industries challenging the non-renewal of mancozeb, addressing issues including the renewal assessment procedure, alleged manifest errors of assessment, and the relationship between pesticide approval and the EU harmonized classification and labelling framework under the CLP Regulation 1272/2008. The applicant subsequently rebuilt on appeal and in particular on the legal point that opinions from the RAC committee are not legally binding and therefore mancozeb should not have been judged on the basis of a classification that had not been formally adopted under the CLP Regulation. The case was successful on appeal and remanded to the General Court for reassessment, and subsequently again dismissed by the General Court on other grounds. That judgment suffers from an inherent inconsistency: on the one hand the General Court acknowledges that conclusions on mancozeb cannot be based on a non-legally binding opinion from RAC relating to its metabolite ETU, and on the other hand, it accepts that the Commission did so in relation to other areas of the risk assessment such as endocrine disruption, which was equally based to a very large extent on the ETU properties as opposed to those of the parent substance. The case is currently under appeal before the CJEU (C-869/25 P).
The presentation will also consider C-308/22, PAN Europe v Belgium, for its implications for national product authorizations. The judgment reinforces the importance of considering the most reliable scientific and technical knowledge available when assessing plant protection products, illustrating how developments in scientific knowledge can affect authorizations at Member State level.
A second strand concerns transparency and access to regulatory information. Recent litigation, including Arysta LifeScience v EFSA (T-222/23) concerning Captanand commercially sensitive information, and PAN Europe v Commission (T-104/23) concerning access to Commission documents, illustrates the increasingly important interaction between Regulation 1107/2009, Regulation 1049/2001 on public access to EU documents, and the Aarhus Regulation. These cases raise fundamental questions concerning the balance between environmental transparency, public participation and the protection of confidential commercial information.
The presentation will then examine how these principles are being applied by Member State courts, with Franceproviding particularly significant recent examples. CAA Paris, 3 September 2025 (23PA03881), in Justice pour le vivant, addressed deficiencies in the State’s approach to pesticide risk assessment and the precautionary principle, including consideration of current scientific knowledge. CAA Marseille, 28 February 2025 (24MA00675), concerning sulfoxaflorproducts, highlighted the importance of assessing risks associated with the formulated product and actual conditions of use, including risks to pollinators. The Conseil d’Étatjudgment of 5 June 2025 (488338) further illustrates the scope for Member States to adopt protective measures notwithstanding EU-level approval of certain active substances.
Particular attention will be given to the French copper litigation. In its 31 March 2026 decision, the Tribunal administrative de Melun partially suspended four ANSES decisions concerning products containing copper hydroxide, identifying serious doubts concerning aspects of occupational-risk assessment in viticulture and requiring reconsideration of the relevant uses. The case illustrates the interaction between EU approval of an active substance, national authorization of formulated products, scientific assessment of real-world exposure and the practical consequences of product withdrawal, including for organic viticulture. An appeal by ANSES to the Conseil d’État is pending, and the French Senate has recorded the continuing uncertainty surrounding the copper products.
Recent Dutchjurisprudence, including the CBb judgments of 14 October 2025 concerning glyphosateand cypermethrinproducts and the Raad van State judgment of 4 March 2026 concerning Captanand access to regulatory documents, provides a further comparative Member State perspective.
Taken together, these cases demonstrate a clear trend towards more intensive judicial scrutinyof pesticide regulation. The central question is increasingly not whether regulatory authorities possess discretion, but whether that discretion has been exercised on the basis of sufficiently robust scientific evidence, appropriate consideration of uncertainty and precaution, transparent reasoning and legally defensible risk-management measures.
For applicants, registrants, regulators and stakeholders, the emerging jurisprudence has significant implications for renewal strategies, national product authorizations, data matching submissions, scientific data and confidentiality management, transparency, internal review and litigation risk.
