Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Bans on the Use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) - the Case of Upper Austria

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law

On 5 October 2005 the Court of First Instance' ruled on the admissibility of the so called 'Upper Austrian Law banning genetic engineering' It was the the first decision of an EU-Court to deal with the issue of co-existence between the cultivation of GMO and GMO free plants, the establishment of GMO-free areas and securing biodiversity.2 There is a fierce battle going on between some EU Member States reluctant to use GMOs and the European Commission,3 which is responsible for ensuring the proper implementation of the Community acquis relating to GMOs. As the trade partners of the EU are pointing to their obligations under international trade law,4 the judgment tackles also a controversial issue of international trade law. The Court upheld the contested decision of the Commission which had rejected the notified Austrian rules.5 Apart from considerations on the GMO issue the ruling is also important as it sets out clear limits concerning the derogation from EU harmonisation measures generally. Both the Commission and the Court found that the conditions for derogation under Article 95(5) EC Treaty were not fulfilled. Even though the Commission and the Court under the current state of Community law6 did not have any other option than to reject the Upper Austrian draft Law, the reasoning behind this finding was in many respects not very convincing.

Affiliations: 1: Institute for Nature Protection and Nature Protection Law in Tuebingen


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation