He sows maize as he has done for years. In his field in Italy, the plants are growing normally. The problem is not with the harvest, but with the seed. The farmer chose a variety of genetically modified maize, MON 810, even though its cultivation remains banned in Italy. The authorities intervened. They ordered the destruction of the plants. They also imposed fines totalling €50,000.
The farmer contested. He referred the case to the Italian courts. The case went all the way to the Court of Justice of the European Union. In a ruling handed down on 5 February, the Court ruled. It validates the Italian ban and, more broadly, the European procedure that allows a Member State to ban the cultivation of a GMO on its territory.
The European mechanism at the heart of the dispute
Since 2015, European law has provided for a specific procedure. A Member State may request that authorisation to cultivate a GMO not apply to all or part of its territory. This request does not require any particular justification. If the authorisation holder does not object within 30 days, the European Commission ratifies the change. Cultivation then becomes prohibited in the area concerned.
In the Italian case, this mechanism applies to MON 810 maize. The company holding the authorisation does not oppose the request. Italy prohibits cultivation. The farmer ignores it. Sanctions follow.
Referred to by the Italian courts, the Court examines the validity of this procedure. It ruled on the free movement of goods, freedom of enterprise, non-discrimination and proportionality. The Court emphasised the European legislature’s margin of appreciation in an area involving complex assessments and political, economic and social choices. It held that the prohibition on cultivation did not prevent the import or sale of products containing that GMO. It also points out that the obligation to give reasons for a ban applies when the authorisation holder opposes it, which is not the case here.
A locked situation in Luxembourg
In Luxembourg, no GMO cultivation is authorised. The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Viticulture states that the cultivation of genetically modified maize MON 810, 1507, Bt11 and GA21 remains explicitly excluded. The country has banned MON 810 since a ministerial order of 23 March 2009, and then confirmed this ban upon the entry into force of Directive (EU) 2015/412.
Luxembourg bases its approach on Article 26c of this Directive, which allows a Member State to restrict the geographical scope of a cultivation authorisation granted before 2015. The Court of Justice of the European Union examined this mechanism in its ruling of 5 February. In practice, this ruling validates the procedure on which Luxembourg has relied since the adoption of the 2015 European rules.
This position does not just concern fields. At European level, the Ministry points out that “Luxembourg is traditionally opposed at European level to authorisations for the cultivation and placing on the market of GMOs as food and feed”. Placing on the market” refers to authorisations that allow products containing GMOs to be marketed, including for human food and animal feed, even if they are not cultivated in the country
Imports and controls
A ban on cultivation does not mean that there are no GMOs in the country. Foodstuffs and animal feed may contain imported GMOs. Controls are governed by the 2017 European regulation on official controls. The Luxembourg authorities define the frequency of controls on the basis of a risk analysis, as part of an integrated multiannual control plan. The Luxembourg Veterinary and Food Administration centralises these controls and publishes information via the national portal dedicated to GMOs.
New GMOs in the background
While the MON 810 dossier appears to have stabilised, European discussions are shifting towards new genomic techniques. Luxembourg distinguishes between two categories. Plants derived from category 1 NGTs undergo limited DNA reorganisation and are classified as conventional plants. Category 2 NGTs come under the GMO regime.
On this point, Luxembourg defends the possibility of banning the cultivation of these organisms at national level. This position is included in that of the Council of the European Union, adopted on 19 December 2025.
As for the environmental organisations, Greenpeace says it is following these discussions closely. The NGO is expressing concern about the lack of risk assessment for certain plants resulting from new techniques and about the future ability of Member States to maintain national bans.