Xavier Groussot

The Court’s central message in Pan Europe (Closer) is that the principle of mutual recognition is not absolute. When decisions fail to consider the most recent scientific and technical knowledge, the precautionary principle must be applied. This case serves as a guide for the proper application of the precautionary principle, particularly in situations where it may come into tension with the principle of legal certainty—an issue that can arise when mutual recognition of plant protection product (PPP) authorisations is applied between examining and authorising national authorities across borders. In the end, the Court has put more flesh on the bones of the application of the principle of precaution, thereby strengthening the development of environmental protection governance in Europe. The ruling must be welcomed, particularly given the current difficult political context, which undermines the application of the precautionary approach. This case note is divided into three main sections. Section 2 focuses on the key facts and provides a summary of the ruling and its key reasoning. The other main sections develop and comment on the ruling’s key legal issues. Section 3 analyses the ruling in light of mutual recognition, mutual trust, and the PPP Regulation, while section 4 examines the extensive guidelines the Court provided to national authorities and courts. In doing so, it also considers new rulings by national courts applying PAN Europe (Closer) and PAN Europe (Evaluation des propriétés de perturbation endocrinienne), the latter of which is important for interpreting the former. Both rulings were delivered on the same day by the Third Chamber of the Court.