EN Official Journal of the European Union C 285/19

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 4 August 2008 — Stichting Greenpeace Nederland v Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, other party: Pioneer Hi-Bred Northern Europe Sales Division

(Case C-359/08)

(2008/C 285/32)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stichting Greenpeace Nederland

Defendant: Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer

Other party: Pioneer Hi-Bred Northern Europe Sales Division

Questions referred

1. Must the location of release of genetically modified organisms which cannot be regarded as confidential by virtue of Article 25(4) of Directive 2001/18/EC (1), in view inter alia of the objective and general scheme of that Directive, be interpreted as referring to the parcel of land in the land register, or is it sufficient for a larger geographical area to be indicated?

2. (a) If the indication of a larger geographical area is sufficient, what circumstances may be included when it is decided how the area is to be indicated? (b) Is Directive 2003/4/EC (2) relevant in the determination of the size of the area to be indicated? (c) Does an area twenty times larger than the individual trial fields satisfy the principle of proportionality?

3. Is the principle of proportionality satisfied if, pursuant to the policy revised on 17 July 2008, a general indication of areas one hundred times the individual trial fields is chosen?

4. If only a reference to an entry in the land register is sufficient, can, despite the rule laid down in Article 25(4) of Directive 2001/18/EC, a justification for treating confidentially information on the precise location of release none the less lie in the circumstances defined in Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC?

5. (a) Does Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC contain an exhaustive list of justifications? (b) If so, can the protection of firms, including the persons and products therein, and the prevention of sabotage for the sake of the biotechnological development climate in the Netherlands be subsumed under one of the justifications set out in Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC?

6. If the answers to Questions 5(a) and (b) are in the affirmative, is the designation of an area twenty or one hundred times the size of the trial field, in the light of Article 4(2)(h) of Directive 2003/4/EC, proportionate having regard to the protection of private interests (protection of firms, including the persons and products therein), and of public interests (prevention of sabotage for the sake of the biotechnological development climate in the Netherlands)?

7. (a) If the answer to Question 5(a) is in the negative, do the protection of firms, including the persons and products therein, and the prevention of sabotage for the sake of the biotechnological development climate in the Netherlands form a permissible justification? (b) If the answer to Question 7(a) is in the affirmative, is the designation of an area twenty or one hundred times the size of the trial field proportionate having regard to the protection of private interests (protection of firms, including the persons and products therein) and of public interests (prevention of sabotage for the sake of the biotechnological development climate in the Netherlands)?

(1) Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1).

(2) Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (OJ 2003 L 41, p. 26).