This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62024CN0364
Case C-364/24, Dalfardo: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 17 May 2024 – PH, on his own account and as owner of the agricultural holding In Trois v Ministero dell’Agricoltura, della Sovranità Alimentare e delle Foreste
Case C-364/24, Dalfardo: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 17 May 2024 – PH, on his own account and as owner of the agricultural holding In Trois v Ministero dell’Agricoltura, della Sovranità Alimentare e delle Foreste
Case C-364/24, Dalfardo: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 17 May 2024 – PH, on his own account and as owner of the agricultural holding In Trois v Ministero dell’Agricoltura, della Sovranità Alimentare e delle Foreste
OJ C, C/2024/5078, 26.8.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5078/oj (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
Official Journal |
EN C series |
|
C/2024/5078 |
26.8.2024 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 17 May 2024 – PH, on his own account and as owner of the agricultural holding ‘In Trois’ v Ministero dell’Agricoltura, della Sovranità Alimentare e delle Foreste
(Case C-364/24, Dalfardo) (1)
(C/2024/5078)
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Consiglio di Stato
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant at first instance and appellant: PH, on his own account and as owner of the agricultural holding ‘In Trois’
Defendant at first instance and respondent: Ministero dell’Agricoltura, della Sovranità Alimentare e delle Foreste
Questions referred
|
1. |
Are Articles 26b and 26c of Directive 2001/18/EC, as amended by Directive (EU) 2015/412, (2) compatible with Article 34 of Regulation No 1829/2003, (3) Article 3 TEU, Articles 2, 3, 26, 34, 35 and 36 TFEU and Articles 16 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? |
|
2. |
If the above question is answered in the negative, may Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/321 of 3 March 2016, (4) adopted on the basis of Article 26c of Directive 2001/18/EC, (5) be disregarded by the referring court or declared invalid on the ground that that Article 26c has been found not to comply with the higher-ranking rules of the TEU and the TFEU? |
(1) The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.
(2) Directive (EU) 2015/412 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2015 amending Directive 2001/18/EC as regards the possibility for the Member States to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in their territory (OJ 2015 L 68, p. 1).
(3) Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (OJ 2003 L 268, p. 1).
(4) Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/321 of 3 March 2016 adjusting the geographical scope of the authorisation for cultivation of genetically modified maize (Zea mays L.) MON 810 (MON-ØØ81Ø-6) (notified under document C(2016) 1231) (OJ 2016 L 60, p. 90).
(5) Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1).
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5078/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)