This manuscript examines how the Precautionary Principle has been applied to provide a mechanism for protection of the environment and health in response to the introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in Europe. It discusses how the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handled national requests across four cases in which Member States had failed in their attempt to trigger the Precautionary Principle in order to uphold a ban or suspension of the cultivation or sale of GMOs in their territory. The analysis of these judgements suggests that the court has applied a narrow interpretation to the scientific evidence emerging from risk assessments, and has thereby limited the potential for precautionary measures by Member States to be upheld by the court. This outcome reflects a `weak' application of the Precautionary Principle by the court in contrast with the `moderate' formulation and `strong' interpretation of the principle offered by the European legal framework. Moreover, the analysis highlights that the CJEU's rulings are not keeping pace with the development of the European normative framework which considers the Precautionary Principle as a key tenet and, through the 2015 Directive, enables Member States to ban GMO cultivation without referring to scientific evidence.

中文翻译：

---

预防原则和转基因生物：欧洲机构和成员国之间的争论焦点

本手稿探讨了如何应用预防原则来提供一种保护环境和健康的机制，以应对欧洲引入转基因生物 (GMO)。它讨论了欧盟法院 (CJEU) 如何处理四个案件中的国家请求，在这些案件中，成员国未能尝试触发预防原则，以维持禁止或暂停种植或销售转基因生物。他们的领土。对这些判决的分析表明，法院对来自风险评估的科学证据进行了狭义的解释，从而限制了法院支持成员国采取预防措施的可能性。这一结果反映了“弱” 法院对预防原则的应用与欧洲法律框架对原则的“温和”表述和“强烈”解释形成对比。此外，分析强调，欧盟法院的裁决没有跟上欧洲规范框架的发展步伐，该框架将预防原则视为关键原则，并通过 2015 年指令使成员国能够在不参考科学证据的情况下禁止转基因生物种植。