WRITTEN QUESTION E-2539/00 by William Newton Dunn (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Commission's review of active substances in herbicides and pesticides.
Date: 2000-07-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European social policy, herbicide, market approval

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/177

Consequently, the Commission endorses the report and will respond to the main challenges it raises in the
fields falling within Community competence. On that last point, it has to be recalled that many pieces of
Community legislation as well as coordinated Community activity in various international fora contribute
either directly or indirectly to the improvement of the marine environment protection.

(2001/C 103 E/202)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2539/00

by William Newton Dunn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 July 2000)

Subject: Commission(cid:146)s review of active substances in herbicides and pesticides

A small business in the English region which I represent manufactures and sells and environmentally-
friendly weedkiller. They wrote to me to complain that they have been obliged to participate in the EU(cid:146)s
review. A coordinating authority in Germany has demanded € 5000, otherwise their product must be
taken off the market. Later they will be informed by the German authority which Member State will
conduct the review of their product but they have no choice in the matter. If it is Greece, they will be
charged a further € 90 000, if it is the United Kingdom the extra charge will be € 180 000, if it is Sweden
it will be nearly € 500 000. Are these facts correct? If so, why are the charges so different across different
EU states? Why is there so little concern for a small growing business which is likely to be forced out of
business by these unfair and apparently ridiculous rules?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 2000)

Whilst the Commission does not want to penalise small innovative enterprises operating in the field of
plant protection, it has, in Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant
protection products on the market (1), a responsibility to review the safety of all plant protection products,
in a timely and efficient manner, so as to ensure the highest level of human and environmental safety.

It is true that there is a high cost in carrying out a review for a plant protection product. Nevertheless this
high cost should be seen against a background of highly complex work, demanding teams of experts to
assess, in a careful and professional way, all the possible impacts which plant protection products could
have.

As to the amounts charged in the different Member States for doing this work, it is true that the cost
structures are not the same. It is therefore not possible to completely harmonise the amount of such fees.
Nevertheless, the amount of the fee has to be established in a transparent way and has to correspond to
the real cost of the examination.

The Commission is currently collecting information on the range of fees charged by the Member States.

(1) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.

(2001/C 103 E/203)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2543/00

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(25 July 2000)

Subject: Television programme (cid:145)Report(cid:146)

On 13 June 2000 a television programme entitled (cid:145)Report(cid:146) was broadcast by RAI 3 in Italy containing
disturbing revelations about the WTO and its underhand dealings with the Commission and the FAO.