Today, the European Court of Justice ruled that the European Commission’s reapproval of cypermethrin in 2021 was unlawful. The decision stated that the reapproval documents contained significant deficiencies, the insect risk mitigation measures on which it was based lacked scientific justification and practical feasibility, and that the long-term toxicity of at least one product containing cypermethrin had not been assessed. The court confirmed that decisions by the European Commission must be based on scientific evidence and sufficiently justified.
This is the first time that a civil society organisation has brought a case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) over the approval of EU pesticides. This was made possible by the 2021 amendments to the Aarhus Regulation, which provided NGOs with a judicial avenue to challenge the approval of pesticides at EU level. In 2024, the General Court of the European Union dismissed a case challenging the re-approval of cypermethrin[1], and PAN Europe subsequently appealed to the ECJ.[2][3] In June 2025, the Prosecutor General of the ECJ issued an opinion[4] supporting most of PAN Europe’s arguments. In today’s judgment, the Court upheld a number of unlawful, yet deplorable and recurring practices by the European Commission.
”The European Court of Justice has reiterated that decisions on pesticides must be based on scientific evidence and have sufficient reasons, in line with previous rulings; however, this case does not meet those requirements,” said Martin Demeeneer, Executive Director of PAN Europe. “EU legislation is not superfluous: it is regrettable that the European Commission sometimes reapproves substances that do not meet safety standards under pressure from Member States (as in the case of cypermethrin), and this happens frequently.”
The ruling stresses that the European Commission cannot ignore the scientific findings of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) without strong, evidence-based justifications.
”The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has clearly stated that the safe use of cypermethrin in real-world conditions cannot be determined. However, the European Commission contradicts this by promoting unproven risk mitigation measures, such as an unrealistic 99% reduction in spray drift, and claiming that these measures will make the substance safe to use. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case, but a widespread practice,” added Salomé Reunell, Policy Officer at PAN Europe.
Professor Antoine Bayocques, Legal Adviser to the European Plant Protection Alliance (PAN Europe), said: “This decision comes as a boost after the disappointing decision of the General Court of the European Union. I even see it as a ray of hope at a time when environmental legislation has significantly deteriorated. The Court and the Advocate General agreed that, among other things, the following points should be considered: (1) The European Commission must provide a detailed explanation of why it approved the renewal of the registration of an active substance despite the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) having identified ‘critical areas of concern’. For example, the European Commission cannot re-approve an active substance on the grounds that its harmful effects on wildlife (bees, frogs, etc.) can be ‘mitigated’ by measures that have not proven feasible; (2) The long-term toxicity of the different components of plant protection products (including, but not limited to, active substances) must be thoroughly studied, including their ‘mixed effects’. These two points are obvious, but were missed when extending the registration of cypermethrin.”
The decision overturned the European Commission’s decision to reject PAN Europe’s request for an internal review, which sought to revoke the Commission’s decision extending the EU authorization for cypermethrin. The European Commission must now implement the ruling and reconsider its decision. This will lead to the revocation of the authorization for cypermethrin.
Cypermethrin is a synthetic pyrethroid insecticide that is highly toxic to bees and aquatic organisms and is suspected of disrupting the human endocrine system. Despite clear warning labels (“areas of critical concern”) and incomplete documentation, the European Commission and Member States reapproved its use in 2021. PAN Europe filed a lawsuit, arguing that the European Commission ignored EU law, the scientific assessment of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and the precautionary principle.
[1] On 21 February 2024, the General Court of the European Union delivered its judgment in Case No. T-536/22, PAN Europe v. European Commission.
[2] On 29 April 2024, the Pesticide Action Network (PAN Europe) lodged an appeal against the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Fourth Chamber) in case T-536/22, delivered on 21 February 2024.
[3] The Pan-European Union has appealed against the General Court of the European Union’s decision regarding the EU’s re-approval of the endocrine disruptor cypermethrin.
© Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe), Address: Rue de la Pacification 67, 1000 Brussels, Belgium, Tel.: +32 2 318 62 55
The Pesticide Action Network (PAN Europe) gratefully acknowledges the funding provided by the European Union, the European Commission, the Directorate-General for Environment, and the LIFE programme. The authors are solely responsible for this publication, and the funding organizations accept no liability for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
Post time: Feb-27-2026