The Court of Justice of the European Union has issued a ruling clarifying that the temporary extension of pesticide approvals may not be granted automatically or systematically due to delays in the safety reassessment process.

The ruling was issued in response to cases filed by nonprofit organizations, which challenged the European Commission’s (EC’s) extension of approval for the pesticide active substances boscalid, dimoxystrobin, and glyphosate. The ruling also annulled the extended approvals for the three chemicals.

According to Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe), one of the nonprofit organizations that filed a case, although EU law requires safety reassessments for pesticides on a ten- to 15-year basis, many substances experience delays in this process that can last years after the initial approval period ends. The EC has taken up the practice of granting long, repeated extensions of pesticide approvals during these delays.

For example, in the instance of dimoxystrobin, which PAN Europe filed a case against, the EC granted a six-year extension of the substance’s approval without carefully assessing and justifying the precise timeframe required to finalize the risk assessment.

The court ruling establishes that “an extension of the approval of an active substance is of a temporary and exceptional nature, [which] must be adopted in the light of the specific circumstances of [a] case and may not, therefore, be applied automatically [or] systematically.”

Additionally, the ruling states: “The length of the extension must be assessed by the [EC] on a case-by-case basis and be sufficient to examine the application for renewal of each active substance. That period must last only for the time needed to complete the renewal procedure, neither more nor less.”

Furthermore, when considering the extension of an approval caused by a delay, the ruling requires the EC to determine the extent of an applicant’s role in the delay of the reassessment of its substance. The court ruling recognizes that applicants may contribute to the delay of a reassessment if the quality of the data provided proves to be inadequate.