Facts

Parties:

  • [A.] Sàrl (appellant), represented by attorney Dr. Franz Satmer, against the Federal Office for Food Safety and Veterinary Affairs (FSV).

Facts:

  • [A.] Sàrl is a Swiss group company of the international corporation [B.] and holds approvals for the plant protection products [C.] and [D.] , which contain the active substance indoxacarb.
  • The European Commission did not renew the approval for indoxacarb, which the Federal Department of the Interior (FDI) communicated to [A.] Sàrl in spring 2022.
  • On July 1, 2022, the FSV revoked the approvals for [C.] and [D.] and granted a sell-off period until October 1, 2022.
  • [A.] Sàrl filed appeals against these decisions with the Federal Administrative Court, which were dismissed on November 7, 2022.
  • [A.] Sàrl then filed appeals with the Federal Supreme Court, which were heard on May 23, 2023.

Considerations

The appeals concern a matter of public law in the field of agricultural law. The appellant has already been involved as a party in the proceedings before the Federal Administrative Court and has not succeeded with its applications there. It is therefore entitled to lodge legal remedies (Art. 89 para. 1 FSCA).

The appellant essentially alleges that the sell-off periods provided for the two plant protection products do not comply with the principle of legality and are not proportional. The appellant did not challenge the revocations of the approvals as such in the previous proceedings, so they have become final.

The sell-off period until October 1, 2022, and the use period until April 1, 2023, which are in dispute in the present cases, are already anchored at the level of the ordinance. The appellant essentially does not object to the repetition of the sell-off period in the decisions of July 1, 2022, but to the governing administrative law relationship, which in this case arises directly from the Plant Protection Products Ordinance in general and from Art. 86h lit. a and lit. b PlantPPO in particular.

The appellant essentially alleges that the application of the sell-off and use periods provided for in Art. 86h lit. a and lit. b PlantPPO is disproportionate. The previous instance correctly establishes that the European Commission has identified a critical problem area with regard to the high long-term risk for wild mammals, in particular the long-term risk for small herbivorous mammals. Based on these findings, the previous instance correctly concludes that, firstly, there is a long-term and high risk to human and animal health and to the environment. Secondly, there is an extremely high risk to the health of bees. Thirdly, it should be added that due to a lack of data, countless risk assessments could not be carried out at all.

The appellant further argues that its interest in reducing the stock of the two plant protection products outweighs the public interest in the prohibition of placing on the market and use. The previous instance correctly points out that, with regard to the private interests of the appellant, the special mechanism of Art. 160 para. 6 AgricA must be taken into account, according to which a decision of the European Commission in the field of active substances of plant protection products generally also applies in Switzerland. The appellant is a group company of the internationally active corporation [B.] in the field of plant protection. According to the undisputed findings of the previous instance, it also operates in the European Union. The appellant also does not dispute the finding of the previous instance that it was aware that the approval of the active substance indoxacarb in the European Union was not renewed and that the approvals there for the two plant protection products were therefore revoked. According to the findings of the previous instance, it informed its German customers and clients about this on…