Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2006:293
Date: 2006-05-04
Language of the case: Dutch
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Provisions governing the Institutions;Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties;Approximation of laws;Plant health legislation
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Netherlands

Summary of the Judgment 1. Approximation of laws – Biocidal products – Directive 98/8 (European Parliament and Council Directive 98/8, Art. 16(1); Council Directive 91/414, Art. 8(2)) 2. Approximation of laws – Plant protection products – Directive 91/414 (Council Directive 91/414, Art. 8(2)) 3. Agriculture – Approximation of laws – Marketing of plant protection products – Directive 91/414 (Council Directive 91/414, Art. 8(2)) 4. Agriculture – Approximation of laws – Marketing of plant protection products – Directive 91/414 (Council Directive 91/414, Art. 8(3)) 5. Agriculture – Approximation of laws – Marketing of plant protection products – Directive 91/414 (Council Directive 91/414, Art. 8(3)) 1. Article 16(1) of Directive 98/8 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market, which provides for a transitional period during which the Member States may continue to apply their national systems, even though they do not comply with that directive, has the same meaning as Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, under which a Member State may, during a transitional period, authorise the placing on the market on its territory of plant protection products containing active substances not referred to in Annex I to that directive that were already on the market two years after the date of notification of the directive. (see para. 37, operative part 1) 2. Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, under which a Member State may, during a transitional period, authorise the placing on the market on its territory of plant protection products containing active substances not referred to in Annex I to that directive that were already on the market two years after the date of notification of the directive, does not constitute a ‘standstill’ obligation. However, the second paragraph of Article 10 EC and the third paragraph of Article 249 EC, and Directive 91/414, require that during the transitional period prescribed in Article 8(2) of that directive the Member States refrain from adopting any measures liable seriously to compromise the result prescribed by that directive. More specifically, Member States may not, during that transitional period, amend the legislation applicable in such a manner as to allow themselves to authorise a plant protection product which comes within the scope of that provision, without duly considering the effects which that product might have on human and animal health and on the environment. Likewise, a decision relating to an authorisation may be taken only on the basis of a dossier comprising all necessary information enabling a genuine assessment of those effects to be made. (see para. 48, operative part 2) 3. Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market is to be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State authorises the placing on the market on its territory of plant protection products containing active substances not referred to in Annex I to that directive that were already on the market two years after the date of notification of the directive, it is not required to comply with the provisions of Article 4 or Article 8(3) of that directive. (see para. 51, operative part 3) 4. A review within the meaning of Directive 91/414 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market presupposes that the plant protection product at issue has already been the subject of an authorisation and that that authorisation is still valid at the time when the review is carried out. Furthermore, it is apparent upon reading Articles 4(5) and 8(3) of Directive 91/414 that the purpose of that review is not a re-evaluation of an active substance in isolation but rather a re-evaluation of the final plant protection product and that it is at the initiative of the national authorities and not at the initiative of the individuals concerned that the relevant product is to be reviewed. It is for the national court to assess whether the evaluation carried out pursuant to national rules exempting certain plant protection products containing an active substance from the prohibitions provided for in those rules corresponds to all the characteristics of a ‘review’ within the meaning of Article 8(3) of Directive 91/414, in particular those set out above. (see paras 53-55, operative part 4) 5. Article 8(3) of Directive 91/414 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, which provides that where they review plant protection products containing an active substance not referred to in Annex I that was already on the market two years after the date of notification of the directive, and before such review has taken place, Member States are to 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, is to be interpreted as meaning that it contains only provisions relating to the provision of data prior to a review. (see para. 58, operative part 5)