EU Court Rules Cypermethrin Re-Approval Illegal
- Apr 10
- 2 min read
A landmark EU Court ruling challenges both the scientific and democratic foundations of pesticide approvals, reinforcing the need for transparency, accountability, and stronger protection of pollinators.
Cypermethrin is a synthetic pyrethroid insecticide known for its high toxicity to bees, pollinators and aquatic organisms, as well as its suspected effects on the human endocrine system. Scientific assessments have long warned that no realistic “safe use” can be identified, particularly due to spray drift and long-term exposure. Despite these risks, the substance was re-approved in the EU in 2021.
In December 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the European Commission acted unlawfully in renewing its approval.The judges found that the decision relied on unscientific and unrealistic mitigation measures, ignored EFSA’s conclusions, and failed to assess the long-term and cumulative (“cocktail”) toxicity of cypermethrin-based products.
The case, brought by PAN Europe, marks the first time a civil society organisation has successfully challenged an EU pesticide approval before the Court. The ruling annuls the Commission’s refusal to review its own decision and obliges it to reassess the approval, opening the door to a possible withdrawal of cypermethrin from the EU market.
Beyond the specific case, the judgment carries broader implications. The Court reaffirmed that pesticide decisions must be science-based, properly justified, and aligned with the precautionary principle — sending a strong signal for the protection of bees, biodiversity, and public health.
Crucially, the ruling also exposes a systemic issue: the lack of transparency in EU decision-making. The Court confirmed that restricting access to key information in pesticide approvals — often handled through comitology procedures, violates citizens’ fundamental rights and undermines democratic accountability.
This comes at a particularly sensitive moment. Recent European Commission proposals to simplify procedures under the Food and Feed Omnibus risk weakening oversight while further limiting public scrutiny. The Court’s message is clear: efficiency cannot come at the expense of transparency, participation, and accountability.
This judgment therefore represents a double milestone:
the first successful legal challenge by civil society against an EU pesticide approval
a clear legal recognition that opacity in regulatory decision-making is unlawful
Ultimately, the ruling reinforces a fundamental principle: citizens have the right to know how decisions affecting their health, environment, and biodiversity are made — and on what scientific basis.
