Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure – Oral procedure – Reopening – Obligation to reopen the oral procedure in order to permit the parties to submit observations on points of law raised in the Advocate General’s Opinion and not debated during the oral procedure – None

(Art. 252, para. 2, TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 61)

2. Approximation of laws – Uniform legislation – Industrial and commercial property – Patent law – Supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products – Conditions for obtaining – Obtaining of the first authorisation to place the product on the market as a plant protection product

(European Parliament and Council Regulation Noº1610/96, Art. 3(1)(b); Council Directive 91/414, Art. 8(1))

Summary

1. Having regard to the very purpose of the adversarial procedure, which is to avoid a situation in which the Court may be influenced by arguments that could not have been discussed by the parties, the Court may of its own motion, or on a proposal from the Advocate General, or at the request of the parties, order the reopening of the oral procedure in accordance with Article 61 of its Rules of Procedure if it considers that it lacks sufficient information, or that the case must be dealt with on the basis of an argument which has not been debated between the parties.

There is no need to grant an application to have the oral procedure reopened based on the fact that the Advocate General dealt at length with the interpretation of a regulation, whereas that point was not debated during the oral procedure, when the Court considers that it has sufficient information to give a ruling and that the case does not need to be decided on the basis of arguments that were not debated between the parties.

Under the second paragraph of Article 252 TFEU, it is the duty of the Advocate General, acting with complete impartiality and independence, to make, in open court, reasoned submissions on cases which, in accordance with the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, require the Advocate General’s involvement. In carrying out that task, the Advocate General may, where appropriate, analyse a reference for a preliminary ruling by placing it within a context broader than that strictly defined by the referring court or by the parties to the main proceedings. The Court is not bound either by the conclusion reached by the Advocate General or by the reasoning which led to that conclusion.

(see paras 26-28)

2. Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 1610/96 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products must be interpreted as not precluding a supplementary protection certificate from being issued for a plant protection product in respect of which a valid marketing authorisation has been granted pursuant to Article 8(1) of Directive 91/414 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, as amended by Regulation No 396/2005.

Applications for provisional marketing authorisations submitted under Article 8(1) of Directive 91/414 must be examined in accordance with the scientific criteria applicable to definitive marketing authorisations governed by Article 4 of that directive. The conditions under which a Member State may, pursuant to Article 8(1) of Directive 91/414, authorise the placing on the market, on a provisional basis, of a plant protection product containing a new substance which is still being assessed with a view to its inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414 are those set out in Article 4(1)(b) to (f) of that directive.

It is, admittedly, true that the assessment made by a Member State when considering an application for a provisional marketing authorisation is, by its nature, prospective and necessarily implies a greater margin of uncertainty than in an assessment made with a view to granting a definitive marketing authorisation. However, the intention of Article 8(1) of Directive 91/414 is that the conditions on which a provisional marketing authorisation may be granted in respect of a product should be the same as those for the grant of a definitive marketing authorisation, in accordance with the objective referred to in the ninth recital in the preamble to Directive 91/414 of ensuring ‘a high standard of protection, which, in particular, must prevent the authorisation of plant protection products whose risks to health, groundwater and the environment and human and animal health should take priority over the objective of improving plant production’.

By reason of that link of functional equivalence which exists between the criteria set out in Article 8(1) of Directive 91/414 and those laid down in Article 4 of that directive, there is thus no need to interpret Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 1610/96 in a manner that would have the effect of excluding from the application of that provision products which have been granted a provisional marketing authorisation under Article 8(1) of Directive 91/414.

(see paras 44-46, 55, operative part)