Ruling on glyphosate renewal: the General Court divided over public authorities' right of standing

The General Court of the EU ruled that the Brussels Region lacked standing to challenge the Commission's renewal of glyphosate authorisation, finding the Region was not 'directly concerned'. This contradicts a previous ruling (T-339/16) where cities were granted standing to challenge Euro 6 emissions standards. The court rejected the Region's arguments that the regulation undermined its local ban on glyphosate or forced it into specific administrative procedures, and it declined to apply the Aarhus Convention to public authorities.

• The General Court of the EU declared the Brussels Region's challenge to the Commission's regulation renewing glyphosate authorisation inadmissible, ruling that the Region was not "directly concerned" under Article 263(4) TFEU.
• The ruling creates a contradiction with case T-339/16 (the 'cities case'), where the General Court previously allowed Brussels City, Paris, and Madrid to challenge Euro 6 emissions standards because the EU act prevented them from exercising their regulatory powers.
• The Court rejected the Brussels Region's claim that the glyphosate renewal undermined its local ban, stating that the regulation did not lead to the "confirmation, prolongation or renewal" of national authorisations and that "objective uncertainty" regarding the legality of the Region's decision was insufficient to establish direct concern.
• The General Court refused to grant the Brussels Region standing based on Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention, interpreting the provision's allowance for 'members of the public' to challenge decisions as excluding public authorities from the definition of 'the public'.

APA

Berthier, A. (2019). Ruling on glyphosate renewal: the General Court divided over public authorities' right of standing. ClientEarth. https://www.clientearth.org/projects/access-to-justice-for-a-greener-europe/updates-annual-newsletters/ruling-on-glyphosate-renewal-the-general-court-divided-over-public-authorities-right-of-standing/

Chicago

Berthier, Anaïs. Ruling on glyphosate renewal: the General Court divided over public authorities' right of standing. ClientEarth, 2019. https://www.clientearth.org/projects/access-to-justice-for-a-greener-europe/updates-annual-newsletters/ruling-on-glyphosate-renewal-the-general-court-divided-over-public-authorities-right-of-standing/.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Berthier |first1=Anaïs |title=Ruling on glyphosate renewal: the General Court divided over public authorities' right of standing |publisher=ClientEarth |date=24 April 2019 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/projects/access-to-justice-for-a-greener-europe/updates-annual-newsletters/ruling-on-glyphosate-renewal-the-general-court-divided-over-public-authorities-right-of-standing/ |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{berthier2019ruling, author = {Berthier, Anaïs}, title = {{Ruling on glyphosate renewal: the General Court divided over public authorities' right of standing}}, institution = {ClientEarth}, year = {2019}, month = apr, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/projects/access-to-justice-for-a-greener-europe/updates-annual-newsletters/ruling-on-glyphosate-renewal-the-general-court-divided-over-public-authorities-right-of-standing/}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }