# C_2004228EN.01000902.xml

| 11.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/9

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 15 July 2004

in Case C-443/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Pordenone): Nicolas Schreiber (1)

1

(Article 28 EC - Directive 98/8/EC - Placing of biocidal products on the market - National measure requiring authorisation for the placing on the market of blocks of red cedar wood having natural anti-moth properties)

(2004/C 228/17)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case C-443/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale di Pordenone (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings before that court against Nicolas Schreiber — on the interpretation 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 (OJ 1998 L 123, p. 1), and Article 28 EC — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, S. von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | Article 3(2)(ii) 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 does not preclude a Member State from requiring prior authorisation for the marketing of blocks of red cedar wood having natural anti-moth properties.
  Such blocks cannot be classed as a product containing only a ‘basic substance’ such that they may be placed on the market in Italy without prior authorisation or registration, but must be classed as a ‘biocidal product’ within the meaning of Directive 98/8. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 3(2)(ii) 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 does not preclude a Member State from requiring prior authorisation for the marketing of blocks of red cedar wood having natural anti-moth properties.

Such blocks cannot be classed as a product containing only a ‘basic substance’ such that they may be placed on the market in Italy without prior authorisation or registration, but must be classed as a ‘biocidal product’ within the meaning of Directive 98/8.

| 2. | Article 4(1) of Directive 98/8 does not preclude a Member State from requiring prior authorisation for the marketing of blocks of red cedar wood having natural anti-moth properties, which have been lawfully placed on the market in another Member State in which there is no requirement of authorisation or registration. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 4(1) of Directive 98/8 does not preclude a Member State from requiring prior authorisation for the marketing of blocks of red cedar wood having natural anti-moth properties, which have been lawfully placed on the market in another Member State in which there is no requirement of authorisation or registration.

| 3. | The fact that a Member State requires prior authorisation for the marketing of blocks of red cedar wood having natural anti-moth properties, which have been lawfully placed on the market in another Member State in which there is no requirement of authorisation or registration, constitutes a measure having equivalent effect contrary to Article 28 EC, which may nevertheless be regarded as justified on grounds of the protection of public health under Article 30 EC. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The fact that a Member State requires prior authorisation for the marketing of blocks of red cedar wood having natural anti-moth properties, which have been lawfully placed on the market in another Member State in which there is no requirement of authorisation or registration, constitutes a measure having equivalent effect contrary to Article 28 EC, which may nevertheless be regarded as justified on grounds of the protection of public health under Article 30 EC.

---

(1)  OJ C 31 of 8.2.2003.

1

---