Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2021:173
Date: 2021-03-04
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Approximation of laws;Public health
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Translation C-912/19 — 1 
Case C-912/19 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
13 December 2019 
Referring court: 
Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
4 December 2019 
Defendant and appellant: 
Agrimotion S.A. 
Applicant and respondent: 
ADAMA Deutschland GmbH 
  
OBERLANDESGERICHT DÜSSELDORF (HIGHER REGIONAL COURT, 
DÜSSELDORF, GERMANY) 
ORDER 
In the case of 
Agrimotion S.A., … Bydgoszcz, Poland, 
defendant and appellant, 
… 
v 
ADAMA Deutschland GmbH, … Cologne, 
applicant and respondent, 
… on 4 December 2019, the 20th Civil Chamber of the Oberlandesgericht 
Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court, Düsseldorf) 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 12. 2019 — CASE C-912/19 
 
2  
made the following o r d e r: 
[Or. 2] 
I. 
The proceedings are stayed. 
II. 
The Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court, Düsseldorf) submits 
the following questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning 
the interpretation of Article 52 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant 
protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC 
and 91/414/EEC (‘the Plant Protection Products Regulation’) 
for a preliminary ruling: 
Can an undertaking which places a plant protection product authorised in the 
Member State of origin on the market of the Member State of introduction 
rely on the parallel trade permit granted by the competent authority of the 
Member State of introduction to a third undertaking, if the canisters 
containing the plant protection product and in which that product is placed 
on the market of the Member State of introduction indicate both the holder 
of the permit and the importing undertaking? If there are any additional 
requirements, what are they? 
G R O U N D S: 
1 The applicant distributes a number of plant protection products in Germany, in 
respect of which it has been granted an authorisation in Germany. It also 
distributes the plant protection products in other Member States, in which, where 
appropriate, they are purchased by the defendant, a company established in 
Poland, in order to be imported into and distributed in the Federal Republic of 
Germany. The defendant advertises that distribution in German on the Internet. 
The holder of the parallel trade permit granted by the competent German authority 
on the basis of identity with the plant protection products authorised for the 
benefit of the applicant in Germany as reference products is not the defendant but 
Bernbeck [Or. 3] LLP, a company established in the United Kingdom. The 
managing director of the defendant notified the appropriate register in Cardiff that 
he holds, directly or indirectly, more than 75% of the shares in Bernbeck LLP. 
2 Before the canisters containing the plant protection products are imported into the 
Federal Republic of Germany, the defendant places a new label on them. This 
label indicates inter alia the name of the defendant as the distributing undertaking, 
a new name of the plant protection product in question, the name of the reference 
AGRIMOTION 
 
3 
product in the Federal Republic of Germany, and the name of the holder of the 
parallel [trade] permit. An example of this is displayed below. [Or. 4] 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 12. 2019 — CASE C-912/19 
 
4  
 
3  
AGRIMOTION 
 
5 
[Or. 5] 
4 The applicant considers the distribution of those canisters in the Federal Republic 
of Germany to be impermissible. It argues that the defendant is not the holder of 
the parallel trade permit. 
5 Against this, the defendant claims that it can rely on the parallel trade permit 
granted to Bernbeck LLP where — as in the present case — that permit is 
indicated on the canisters. It maintains that this is also the view taken by the 
competent authority. 
6 In accordance with the form of order sought, the Landgericht (Regional Court, 
Germany) imposed an injunction on the defendant and ordered it to provide 
information; it also found that the defendant is under an obligation to pay 
damages. The Landgericht (Regional Court, Germany) proceeded from the 
assumption that the defendant cannot rely on the parallel trade permit granted to 
Bernbeck LLP. According to that court, that permit is, as is clear from the second 
sentence of Article 52(4) of the Plant Protection Products Regulation, personal. 
7 The defendant has appealed against that judgment. It relies in particular on the 
opposite view taken by the competent German authority as well as on the practice 
in other Member States. 
The question referred for a preliminary ruling 
8 The resolution of the dispute hinges on the question referred for a preliminary 
ruling. If it were found that the defendant cannot rely on the parallel trade permit 
granted to Bernbeck LLP, the appeal would have to be dismissed. Under German 
law, the applicant, as a competitor of the defendant, can seek an injunction from 
the courts with respect to the distribution of the plant protection products in the 
Federal Republic of Germany, if that distribution is impermissible. Whether that 
distribution is impermissible depends on the interpretation of Article 52 of the 
Plant Protection Products Regulation. |It is true that the Court of Justice, in its 
judgment of 14 November 2019, Vaselife International and Chrysal International 
(C-445/18, EU:C:2019:968), has already ruled on Article 52 of the Plant 
Protection Products Regulation; it has not, however, ruled on the issues relevant to 
the present case. 
9 The requirements set out in Article 52 of the Plant Protection Products Regulation, 
which are not the subject matter of the reference made, are met. It is not disputed 
that the plant protection products are authorised in the Member States in which the 
defendant purchases them. The plant production products are also the subject of a 
[Or. 6] parallel import permit granted by the competent German authority. 
However, it is unclear what consequences follow from the fact that the holder of 
the parallel trade permit is not the defendant but Bernbeck LLP. 
10 The Court of Justice has held, with respect to the legal situation prior to the entry 
into force of the Plant Protection Products Regulation, in its judgment of 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 12. 2019 — CASE C-912/19 
 
6  
8 November 2007, Escalier and Bonnarel (C-260/06 and C-261/06; 
EU:C:2007:659), that there is no objection to national provisions according to 
which a simplified procedure for import in the context of parallel trade is required 
and the authorisation is personal (paragraph 37 et seq.). In Germany, the courts 
and academic writers conclude from inter alia the second sentence of 
Article 52(4) of the Plant Protection Products Regulation that that case-law 
continues to apply, namely, that it is clear from that provision that it is possible for 
a number of parallel trade permits to be granted in respect of the same product. 
11 However, that is doubtful as, according to recital 9 of the Plant Protection 
Products Regulation, the obstacles to trade between the Member States should be 
reduced further. According to the practice of the competent authorities of a 
number of Member States (United Kingdom, Lithuania), set out by the defendant, 
it seems possible for undertakings to rely on a parallel trade permit granted to a 
third undertaking; this is because … the authorisation documents distinguish 
between the holder of the [parallel trade] permit and the importer. That is a 
possibility in particular where the holder of the parallel trade permit — as in the 
present case — is indicated on the canisters and therefore, a contact person and 
responsible party is known; in that manner, the reasons given in the judgment of 
8 November 2007, Escalier and Bonnarel (C-260/06 and C-261/06, 
EU:C:2007:659) for the parallel trade permit being personal are thus taken into 
account. The competent authority of the Federal Republic of Germany 
(Bundesamt für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit (Federal Office for 
Consumer Protection and Food Safety)) also assumes such a possibility under 
certain circumstances. 
12 Even if that is generally permissible, it remains unclear whether there are further 
requirements in that respect. For instance, it is conceivable that that undertaking 
must be indicated at the time when the application for a parallel trade permit is 
made, in order that the competent authority is aware of which undertaking is in 
fact responsible. The competent German authority stated that distribution by the 
[Or. 7] defendant in Germany is permissible where — as in the present case — 
the holder of the [parallel trade] permit is indicated on the label and that holder of 
the [parallel trade] permit is the ‘first one to place the product on the market in 
Germany’; that authority therefore appears to proceed from the assumption that it 
is only further distribution within Germany that may then be carried out by any 
other undertaking. Whether any possible further requirements are in fact met can 
only be determined once the court is aware of what those requirements are. 
…