Brussels, 13/02/2014 (Agence Europe) - In an inter-institutional squabble over the legal interpretation of a comitology procedure described as absurd, the row over the forthcoming authorisation for cultivation of the genetically modified maize TC 1507 by Pioneer is turning into a political stand-off in teh run-up to the European elections. The tension was mounting on the evening of Thursday 12 February, with the initiative by 12 member states of the EU to bring increasing pressure to bear on the European Commission to withdraw its proposal to authorise the cultivation of this controversial GMO in the EU, which 19 member states, the Parliament and a great many citizens do not want (see EUROPE 11017 and 11016). But for the time being, the Commission is sticking to its guns.
In a joint letter to European Commissioner for Health Tonio Borg, the ministers of 12 countries (Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovenia and Malta), who were present at the General Affairs Council of 11 February, write: “An overwhelming majority of stakeholders, including the European Parliament and member states, have repeatedly opposed the proposal. Yesterday, in particular, only five member states supported it and 19 were against. That kind of an outcome would not yield approval under any other decision-making procedure, amply underlining the validity and usefulness of the Commission's pledge (Ed: in its declaration of 28 June 1999) not to go against predominant majorities in such cases”. They state that they are “convinced that the Commission cannot ignore the legal, political and scientific concerns voiced by so many member states and the general political landscape” and that they are therefore “confident that, by considering the horizontal impact of the issue, the Commission will withdraw the proposal”.
If they are convinced that a withdrawal as possible, this also because the Council has not formally carried out its vote, the Greek Presidency having stated after the debate that there would be no qualified majority either for or against the proposal. And, according to the legal services of the Council, the Commission may modify or withdraw its proposal as long as the Council has not acted. “The role of the Presidency is to put the dossier to the vote if it is possible to reach a final result”, an expert said on Thursday.
For its part, the Commission takes the view that the letter of the 12 does not add anything new to the arguments already developed by these ministers at the debate of the General Affairs Council. In his reply to the signatories on Thursday morning, Borg repeats that the Commission had no choice but to move ahead, as the request for authorisation dates back to 2001, that it has received six favourable EFSA opinions and that a ruling of the EU Court criticised the Commission for failing to act when it did not submit the proposal to the Council following the inconclusive vote of the regulatory committee in 2009. He points out that the Council had the option of blocking the proposal, which it did not do, and that, under the comitology rules approved by the Council and the Parliament, in the absence of a qualified majority “the Commission shall adopt the proposal”. The Commission is counting on the Environment Council of 3 March to reach an agreement on its 2010 proposal to modify Directive 2001/18/EC to allow the member states to limit or ban on their territory the cultivation of GMOs authorised at EU level, invoking reasons other than health or the environment (socio-economic or philosophical, for example). French Agriculture Minister Stephane Lefoll announced on BFM on Thursday that France and Germany would make a joint proposal “via the Franco-German summit, a proposal completely to review the legislation” to allow the member states to make their own decisions on the basis of “objective and positive criteria”. (AN/transl.fl)