Photo of Bart Van Vooren

Bart Van Vooren

Bart Van Vooren, partner leads a dynamic practice at the intersection of EU regulatory law, global health, and biodiversity law. In these fields, he advises innovative pharmaceutical, food, cosmetic and technology companies on complex EU and global regulatory, compliance and policy assignments.

Bart holds a Ph.D. in EU and International Law and was a professor of EU law until 2013. During that time, he wrote the first-ever handbook with Cambridge University Press on “EU External Relations Law” (2014). He then transitioned to private practice, and frequently acted for the Belgian government before the EU Court of Justice (e.g. C-16/16P Belgium vs Commission). Bart joined Covington in 2016, leading some of our most consequential EU litigation proceedings (e.g. C-311/18 “Schrems II”) over the years.  Having handled nearly 50 cases before the EU Court, he’s uniquely qualified to support our corporate clients in our most high-stakes disputes. Recent examples include T-189/21 Aloe Vera of Europe v Commission (which we won, so the Commission decided to appeal); as well as T-201/21 Covington & Burling and Van Vooren v Commission (which we also won, and hence is also on appeal).

As a pioneer in biodiversity law, over the past 15 years Bart has built a unique, global practice on Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) laws under the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Nagoya Protocol, the Plant Treaty, the High Seas Treaty and the WHO Pandemic Agreement. ABS compliance is critical when sourcing biological materials for life sciences R&D and I work with many of the world's innovative life sciences companies on the whole range of e.g. transactional, contractual, compliance, IP, (EU) regulatory and litigation work relating to ABS. As biodiversity has increasingly become identified as a major commercial and financial risk to companies, so has the practice expanded to e.g. biodiversity credit markets, biodiversity insurance, biodiversity claims and advertising, and so on. Since April 2025, Bart has been appointed as the industry representative to the Steering Committee of the UN Biodiversity Fund that seeks funding from the private sector for biodiversity conservation and restoration.

Bart also pioneered our global health practice. He has advised pharmaceutical clients on seasonal and pandemic influenza since 2016. Since then, this practice area expanded to cover all matters relating to infectious diseases, and as of 2020, emergency preparedness and response (eg. WHO prequalification, International Coordination Group negotiations, Emergency Use Listing, International Health Regulations Rev 2024). He has been the pharmaceutical industry’s lead lawyer advising on the WHO Pandemic Treaty negotiations, adopted on 14 May 2025. Currently, he continues to advise on the work of the Intergovernmental Working Group (“IGWG”) teasing out the technical details of the “Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System” intended to create legally binding obligations on companies to commit vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics in case of a new global health emergency.

In Chambers rankings, clients have kindly described Bart as “very knowledgeable, action-focused and service-focused lawyer", adding that he “really tries to find a way of working through challenges”, am “customer-oriented” and provide “sound advice and reasonable options for our business with pros and cons."

Finally, Bart has an active pro bono practice assisting NGOs defending the human rights of persons with a disability through strategic litigation before the EU Court.

Contact:Read more about Bart Van VoorenEmail

On January 8, 2026, Brazil published Law 15,330/2026, officially recognizing açaí berry as a Brazilian national fruit in a bid to protect it from so-called “biopiracy”, i.e., the illegal exploitation of genetic resources and traditional knowledge (“ATK”).  Açaí berry is a ‘superfood’ rich in nutrients which grows almost exclusively along the Amazon River, and particularly in Brazil, its largest producer and exporter, producing about 1.74 million tons of açaí and generating around BRL 7.7 billion in 2024.

The legislative recognition of açaí berry as a national fruit – following the earlier designation of cupuaçu in 2008, which itself responded to attempts to register “cupuaçu” as a trademark in Japan – is largely symbolic in nature.  Law 15,330/2026 does not introduce new substantive rights or regulatory mechanisms, as Brazil already comprehensively governs access to genetic resources and the sharing of benefits arising from their use, under Law 13,123/2015 and through its implementation of the Nagoya Protocol.  Its practical significance therefore lies less in creating additional protection than in drawing renewed political and public attention to the enforcement of Brazil’s existing access and benefit‑sharing regime.

Continue Reading Brazil declares Açaí a National Fruit: What Are the Real Practical Implications for EU Companies?

On January 17th, 2026, the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (“BBNJ”) Agreement, also known as the “High Seas Treaty”, entered into force.  For the first time, companies that use marine genetic resources (“MGRs”) and digital sequence information (“DSI”) originating from areas beyond national jurisdiction may be required to share monetary and non-monetary benefits at a global level.

This marks a significant expansion of access and benefit-sharing (“ABS”) obligations for companies.  Until now, under the Convention on Biological Diversity (“CBD”) and its Nagoya Protocol, ABS obligations applied only to genetic resources originating within national jurisdictions.  The BBNJ Agreement fundamentally changes this landscape: companies in pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, cosmetics, food and feed that rely on marine-derived compounds, microorganisms or genetic data may now face new reporting and annual payment obligations.

Companies should not assume a long transition period.  Implementation is already advancing.  The European Commission has published a draft Directive (“draft EU Directive”), and the United Kingdom adopted the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Act 2026 (“UK Act”) on February 12th, 2026. Companies should therefore assess now whether their R&D pipelines, data use practices, or product portfolios fall within scope.

In this blog, we examine how the BBNJ Agreement and its EU and UK implementation could affect companies using MGRs and DSI, and identify the key compliance risks and strategic questions for in-house counsel and senior management.

Continue Reading Navigating the new UN High Seas Treaty: Key Compliance Risks for Life Sciences Companies

On February 26, 2026, the European Union published Directive (EU) 2026/470 on the simplification of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (“CSDDD”) and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (“CSRD”) in its Official Journal, clearing the final step in the Omnibus I legislative process.

This blog post: (i) summarizes the substance…

Continue Reading EU CSDDD/CSRD Omnibus Published in Official Journal: Transposition, Delegated Acts, and Guidelines Are Next

On November 5, 2025, the Spanish Ministry for Ecological Transition and Demographic Challenge (“MITECO”) adopted a Resolution setting out the National Plan for the control of compliance with access and benefit-sharing (“ABS”) obligations under Regulation 511/2014 implementing the Nagoya Protocol in the European Union.  The National Plan sets out a “risk-based” control system to ensure that life sciences companies in, e.g., the pharmaceutical, plant breeding, cosmetic and other sectors operating in Spain utilize genetic resources (“GRs”) and associated traditional knowledge (“ATK”) in compliance with ABS rules of the country where the GRs and ATK are accessed. We provide more details below.

Building on the existing ABS framework in Spain, and in particular on the Royal Decree 124/2017, the MITECO adopted a National Plan setting out a “risk-based” control system, mandating the competent authorities of the Autonomous Communities (“the authorities”) to perform controls on users of certain sectors that are more likely at risk of utilizing GRs and ATK in violation of ABS rules.  

Continue Reading ABS Enforcement Expected in Spain: Spain Adopted a National Plan to Enforce Access and Benefit-Sharing Rules

On 23 January 2025, we hosted the 2025 edition of the Covington European Life Sciences Symposium. The Symposium brought together colleagues from London, Brussels, Frankfurt and Dublin with our industry connections to explore the evolving challenges and opportunities facing the European life sciences sector.

Throughout the day our speakers shared their perspectives on a range of legal, regulatory, and business trends, including the evolving regulatory frameworks in the EU and UK; information exchange in ongoing collaboration; investigations and whistleblowing; key ESG topics, and the complexity of options to acquire in pharma deals.

We have set out some of the discussion from the sessions below.

European Life Sciences – The Changing Landscape for Pharma and Biotech

Grant Castle, Head of Covington’s European Life Sciences Regulatory Practice, Peter Bogaert, Marie Doyle-Rossie and Anna Wawrzyniak kicked off with a discussion about the Changing Landscape for Pharma and Biotech.

The UK and EU both aim to deliver access to innovative and transformative medicines and foster international competitiveness in the life sciences industry. Despite the practical challenges faced by the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in recent years, it has emerged as an ambitious regulator and is establishing innovative regulatory frameworks, including an international reliance scheme (see our update here), point of care manufacturing regulations, and the relaunch of the Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway (ILAP).

The EU is also pursuing a wave of legislative reform, including wide ranging revisions to the EU’s pharmaceutical legislation, the EU’s supplementary protection certificates (SPC) rules, and proposals for a compulsory licensing scheme.

There can sometimes be a tension between the UK’s and EU’s aims and the practical impacts of regulatory reform, especially in the early stages of implementation.

Continue Reading The Covington European Life Sciences Symposium 2025
EU justice
European Union Law Scales of Justice

In a precedent decision, on 13 November 2024, the EU General Court annulled significant parts of a Commission Regulation, which sought to restrict or place under scrutiny the addition of certain botanicals containing hydroxyanthracene derivatives (“HADs”) to foods.  The Court held that the Commission had exceeded its powers by seeking to regulate botanical “preparations.”  Moreover, the Commission, in relying on the scientific opinion of the European Food Safety Authority (“EFSA”), had failed to demonstrate that the relevant substances would be ingested in amounts greatly exceeding those consumed from a normal diet or otherwise represented a potential risk to consumers. 

1. Background

Regulation (EC) 1925/2006 governs the addition of vitamins and minerals and of certain other substances to food (the “Fortification Regulation”).  Article 8 permits the Commission on its own initiative, or on the basis of information provided by Member States, to prohibit, restrict or place under scrutiny “substances” and “ingredients containing a substance”, which are “added to foods or used in the manufacture of foods under conditions that would result in the ingestion of amounts of this substance greatly exceeding those reasonably expected to be ingested under normal conditions of consumption of a balanced and varied diet and/or would otherwise represent a potential risk to consumers.”

In 2016, the Commission, relying on Article 8, requested EFSA to provide a scientific opinion on the safety of HADs and preparations containing HADs.  In November 2017, EFSA adopted its scientific opinion “Safety of hydroxyanthracene derivatives for use in foods” (“the EFSA Opinion”) in which it concluded as follows:

Continue Reading EU Court Overturns EU-wide Botanical Food Ban

October 12, 2024, marks the 10-year anniversary of entry into force of the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and Fair Benefit-Sharing from their Utilization (“ABS”). This additional treaty to the Convention on Biological Diversity (“CBD”) has now been ratified by 142 countries. Over the past decade, Nagoya Protocol has resulted in the mushrooming of more than one-hundred thirty (130+) national ABS laws around the globe. All this time the Covington life sciences team has stood by its pharmaceutical, food and biotech clients to navigate this ever-more challenging Harlequin’s costume that is the global ABS legal regime. 

In this Client Alert we share lessons learned from our 10+ years of experience on ABS in the life sciences sector.[1] As an anniversary edition, this document is a long read. For ease of navigation, we have structured it as a Q&A. 

We first recall the basics of ABS. Then we cover key questions from clients such as e.g. compliance best practices and enforcement trends. Finally, we look to challenges in the near-future, focusing on emerging ABS regimes such as the global mechanism on benefit-sharing from Digital Sequence Information (“DSI”), the genetic resource disclosure requirement when filing patents under a new World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) treaty, the new “pathogen” ABS provisions of the World Health Organization (“WHO”) Pandemic Treaty, the High Seas Treaty on marine genetic resources, and last but not least, the new corporate due diligence obligations under the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (“CS3D”).

If you have any questions or would like a meeting concerning the material discussed in this Client Alert, please contact our partner Bart Van Vooren at bvanvooren@cov.com.

The ABC of ABS

1. What is the purpose of the Nagoya Protocol?

The Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992 recognizes the sovereignty of countries over biological resources within their jurisdiction. The CBD has three main objectives: (1) the conservation of biodiversity, (2) its sustainable use, and (3) “the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the arising from the utilization of genetic resources.” Although there are 196 Parties to the CBD, by 2014 very few countries had implemented rules on ABS. The Nagoya Protocol was therefore negotiated as a supplemental treaty to achieve the third objective of the CBD. It does so by empowering countries to impose prior authorization (Access) and payment requirements (Benefit-Sharing) on companies that commercialize products or processes that utilize biological materials. This supposedly creates a financial resources and incentive for countries to protect biodiversity.

Continue Reading The Nagoya Protocol at Its 10th Anniversary: Lessons Learned and New Challenges from ‘Access and Benefit-Sharing’

In the early hours of December 14, 2023, the Council of the EU (“Council”) and the European Parliament (“Parliament”) reached a provisional political agreement on the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (“CSDDD”). Described as a “historic breakthrough” by Lara Wolters, who has led this file for the Parliament, the CSDDD will require many companies in the EU and beyond to conduct environmental and human rights due diligence on their global operations and value chain, and oblige them to adopt a transition plan for climate change mitigation.

Given the CSDDD’s relevance for companies’ ongoing compliance planning on environmental and human rights matters, this blog aims to advise clients on the basic elements of the CSDDD agreement based on press releases from the Council, Parliament, and the European Commission (“Commission”), even if much uncertainty remains. Although a political agreement has been reached, the text of the agreement is not publicly available and a number of details of the legal text will need to be finalized in follow-up technical meetings. Covington will publish a more detailed alert on “how to prepare” for the CSDDD once the full text is available (likely in early 2024).

In Short

After intense negotiations since the Commission published its proposal in February 2022, the Directive is set to lay down significant due diligence obligations for large companies regarding actual and potential adverse impacts on human rights and the environment, with respect to their own operations, those of their subsidiaries, and those carried out by their business partners.

Continue Reading Provisional Agreement on the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD): Key Elements of the Deal

Those in the business of fast‑moving consumer goods (“FMCGs”) are likely aware of the plethora of environmental and product stewardship regulations applicable to the FMCG sector.  These laws are set to increase and expand in application.  What FMCG companies also need to get to grips with are a range of broader (and also fast‑moving!) environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) developments and consequent risks and opportunities.  Companies need to understand how the new world of ESG impacts their supply chains, key ingredients and components, consumer choice and confidence, competitive advantage, market accessibility, and marketing. 

Designed as a ‘primer’ for FMCG companies, in this piece, we cover a range of key trends in the emerging UK and EU ESG legal landscape as relevant for the FMCG sector, from farmers to Food Business Operators (“FBOs”) and from manufacturers to retailers.  We also discuss some key legal and reputational risks; as well as pointers to help companies decipher and prepare for the ESG storm.

We focus on the UK and the EU (first movers on many ESG issues), but the landscape in other jurisdictions (including, for example, the US) is also evolving and becoming more complex.

Key ESG Issues for FMCGs

We think there are four categories of key ESG developments for FMCGs to watch: (I) corporate reporting and disclosure regimes; (II) green/sustainability claims and labelling; (III) supply chain obligations; and (IV) product packaging and presentation.

Many emerging ESG frameworks cut across sectors.  This may be efficient for regulators, but can make identifying sector-specific risks and opportunities more challenging.  We have sought to do that below.

Continue Reading Green Groceries: Key ESG Issues for the FMCG Industry (including FBOs)

From 25 to 29 January 2022, the 150th session of the World Health Organization’s (“WHO”) Executive Board (“EB”) took place in Geneva, Switzerland.  Two years into the COVID-19 pandemic, a central theme for this session was the management of global health emergencies.  This post briefly outlines the main take-aways…
Continue Reading Key take-aways from the 150th session of the WHO Executive Board