(AGENPARL) - Roma, 5 Febbraio 2026 - (AGENPARL) – Thu 05 February 2026 PRESS RELEASE No 9/26
Luxembourg, 5 February 2026
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-364/24 and C-393/24| Fidenato
Agriculture: Member States may under certain conditions prohibit the
cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in their territory
The Court endorses the procedure that allows the Commission, on demand of a Member State and with the
tacit consent of the authorisation holder, to restrict the zone where the cultivation of a GMO is authorised and
also confirms the lawfulness of the prohibition on cultivating MON 810 maize introduced in Italy on the basis
of that procedure
An Italian farmer planted genetically modified maize (MON 810) even though such cultivation is prohibited in his
Member State. The Italian authorities thus ordered the farmer to destroy the plants in question and imposed on
him fines totalling € 50 0000.
The prohibition was decided on the basis of a procedure laid down in EU law: 1 in 2015, the EU legislature adopted
provisions establishing common rules for determining the conditions under which Member States may restrict or
prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in their territory as the legislature considered that such choices must be made at
Member State level. The EU legislature provided, inter alia, that where a Member State, without providing any
specific justification, demands adjustment of the geographical scope of the authorisation for the cultivation of a
GMO and where the authorisation holder does not oppose it within 30 days, the European Commission takes formal
notice of that adjustment, which immediately becomes applicable. That effectively results in the prohibition of the
cultivation of the GMO in question in the territories where the authorisation, as adjusted, is not applicable. Within
that framework, many Member States have restricted or prohibited the cultivation of MON 810 maize in all or part
of their territory.
The farmer in question brought actions before the Italian courts against the decisions taken against him. Within the
context of those actions, those courts have submitted several questions for a preliminary ruling to the Court of
Justice so that, inter alia, the Court could verify the validity of the provisions laying down that procedure.
The national courts seek in particular clarification from the Court of Justice as to compliance with the free
movement of goods, the freedom to conduct a business and the principles of non-discrimination and
proportionality.
In its judgment the Court takes account of the fact that a prohibition of the cultivation of a GMO, such as the one in
force in Italy, is decided with the tacit consent of the holder of the authorisation relating to that GMO. The Court also
highlights that the EU legislature has a broad discretion when it intervenes in areas such as the cultivation of GMOs,
which involve complex assessments and have political, economic and social repercussions, both at national and
local levels. Against that background, the Court finds that the procedure provided for by EU law since 2015 –
which allows Member States, in line with subsidiarity, to seek the prohibition of the cultivation of a GMO in
their territory without any specific justification where the authorisation holder is not opposed to it – is not
contrary to EU law.
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
The Court specifically holds that such a mechanism is not in breach of the principle of proportionality, nor
does it create any discrimination between farmers from different Member States.
The prohibition on cultivating a GMO does not constitute an infringement of the free movement of goods
either, as it does not hinder undertakings from importing products containing that GMO nor does it hinder
consumers from buying those products.
Last, the Court finds that the obligation to justify the restriction or prohibition of the cultivation of a GMO only
applies where the authorisation holder is opposed thereto. In the present case, the tacit consent of the
authorisation holder rules out that scenario and any interference with the freedom to conduct a business.
NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which
have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of EU law or the
validity of an EU act. The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself. It is for the national court or tribunal to
dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts or
tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.
The full text and, as the case may be, an abstract of the judgment is published on the CURIA website on the day of
delivery.
Stay Connected!
The prohibition of cultivation was laid down in 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), adopted on the basis of the procedure set
out in Article 26c of 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.
Communications Directorate