Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie v. College voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen, interveners: 3M Nederland BV and Others

Résumé

The request for a preliminary ruling concerned the interpretation of the transitional provisions of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and those of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market. The request was submitted in proceedings between the Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie (‘the Stichting’) and the College voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen (‘the College’) concerning the procedure and the conditions under Netherlands law for the grant of authorization to place pesticide products on the market. Article 16(1) of Directive 98/8, on transitional measures, provided that ‘a Member State may, for a period of 10 years …, continue to apply its current system or practice of placing biocidal products on the market. It may, in particular, according to its national rules, authorise the placing on the market in its territory of a biocidal product containing active substances not listed in Annex I or IA …’. However, those active substances had to be on the market within not more than 24 months from the date of entry into force of the directive, as active substances of a biocidal product for purposes other than scientific research and development or process-orientated research and development. Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414 read as follows: ‘By way of derogation from Article 4 and without prejudice to paragraph 3 or to Directive 79/117/EEC, a Member State may, during a period of 12 years following the notification of this Directive, authorise the placing on the market in its territory of plant protection products containing active substances not listed in Annex I that are already on the market two years after the date of notification of this Directive. Article 8(3) provided that ‘[w]here they review plant protection products containing an active substance in accordance with paragraph 2, and before such review has taken place, Member States shall apply the requirements laid down in article 4(1)(b)(i) to (v), and (c) to (f) in accordance with national provisions concerning the data to be provided’. The national court asked, inter alia, whether Article 16(1) of Directive 98/8 was to be interpreted as constituting a ‘standstill’ obligation or whether that article contained other restrictions on the right of Member States to amend their existing authorization systems during the transitional period. The court emphasized that the existence of a ‘standstill’ obligation could not be inferred from the actual wording of Article 16(1) of Directive 98/8, which contained no express formulation to that effect. Furthermore, Article 34(3) of Directive 98/8 placed the Member States under an obligation to communicate to the Commission the texts of the provisions of national law which they adopted in the field covered by that directive. In so far as Article 34(1) provided for specific communication of the domestic measures adopted in order to transpose Directive 98/8, and taking into account the purpose of Article 34(3), it was clear that that the directive also envisaged amendments to the national systems during the transitional period other than those aimed at transposing it. Therefore, the words ‘continue to apply its current system or practice of placing biocidal products on the market’ in Article 16(1) of Directive 98/8 were not to be interpreted as constituting a ‘standstill’ obligation. However, the second paragraph of Article 10 EC and the third paragraph of Article 149 EC, and Directive 98/8, required that during the transitional period prescribed in Article 16(1) of that directive the Member States refrained from adopting any measures liable seriously to compromise the result prescribed by that directive. By its second question, the national court asked whether, in spite of the different wording, the transitional regimes provided for in Article 16(1) of Directive 98/8 and Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414 had the same meaning. The court interpreted both regulations and held that Article 16(1) of Directive 98/8 had the same meaning as Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414. Finally, the national court asked whether Article 8(3) of Directive 91/414 contained only provisions concerning the communication of data prior to a review or whether it had to be interpreted as meaning that the conditions which it laid down also had an impact on the way in which a review had to be organized and carried out. The court decided that Article 8(3) of Directive 91/414 was to be interpreted as meaning that it contained only provisions relating to the supply of data prior to a review.

Texte intégral

liste.jsf

Références

Cite

Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market.

Législation | Union européenne | 1998

Mot clé: Désinfection, Emballage/étiquetage, Commerce intérieur, Autorisation/permis, Santé des animaux

Source: FAO, FAOLEX

Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market.

Législation | Union européenne | 1991

Mot clé: Protection des végétaux, Pesticides, Engrais/nutriments, Emballage/étiquetage, Certification, Agents de lutte biologique, Commerce intérieur, Production végétale

Source: FAO, FAOLEX