WRITTEN QUESTION P-4149/00 by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission. Dutch law on plant protection products.
Date: 2001-01-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law - national law, Netherlands, market approval, pesticide

C 174 E/240

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

19.6.2001

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural
Funds (1) sets out three major Structural Funds objectives: promoting the development and structural
adjustment of regions whose development is lagging behind, aid for the economic and social conversion of
areas facing structural difficulties, and assistance in adapting and modernising policies and systems of
education, training and employment.

In line with the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission is responsible for monitoring the programmes
cofinanced by the Structural Funds. However, it is the managing authority designated by the Member State
which is responsible for managing the operations, and this body may have such detailed information.

However, it should be noted that single-parent families are not, as such, beneficiaries of the Structural
they may receive assistance from the Funds through measures planned for the various
Funds, but
operations cofinanced by the Structural Funds in Spain.
the priorities relating to the
participation of women in the labour market and the integration of people with specific difficulties,
together with equal opportunities as an across-the-board priority, can provide opportunities for single-
parent families.

In particular,

In this way, the Structural Funds, while also helping to make improvements in the labour market and to
eliminate inequalities, can support the integration of single-parent families.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 174 E/258)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4149/00

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Dutch law on plant protection products

On 29 September I received an answer to my Written Question P-2829/00 (1) concerning authorisation for
certain plant protection products (Article 15 of Regulation (EC) 451/2000 (2)). It is clear that the Nether-
lands can continue to apply national criteria as regards dossier requirements until a Community decision
on the substance has been taken. However, it is still unclear whether Member States are in breach of the
law in the absence of a Community decision and in the event of incompatibility with general principles of
relevant Community legislation.

1.
How does the proposed Netherlands law on plant protection products, under which substances
harmful to the environment are authorised on grounds of supposedly being essential for agricultural
purposes, relate to the principle laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC (3) that the environment should take
priority over plant production concerns?

2.
The Netherlands law is to apply to 11 substances which have been shown not to satisfy the
environmental criteria. How does the proposed Netherlands law on plant protection products relate to
Article 8(3) and Article 4 of Directive 91/414/EEC providing that, in applying environmental criteria, the
latest scientific and technical knowledge must be taken into account?

3.
The Netherlands Government intends, on the basis of the aforementioned proposed law, to apply less
rigid environmental criteria up to 2006. This exceeds the transitional period of 12 years laid down in
Directive 91/414/EEC and running up to 2003. Is that compatible with European rules?

4. What is the Commission(cid:146)s view of the proposed Netherlands law in the light of the opinion of the
Advocate General
Justice, 21 September 2000, case C-306/98) concerning a comparable
measure, ruling that, during the transitional period, in making national assessments the environmental
criteria laid down in the uniform principles have direct effect and must therefore be applied?

(Court of

19.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 174 E/241

The fact that there are differences between Member States with regard to authorisation of certain
5.
plant protection products not yet included in Annex I distorts competition. There is consequently a need
to speed up decisions on the placing of active substances on the list in Annex I. Does the Commission see
any possibility of speeding up the assessment procedure?

(1) OJ C 103 E, 3.4.2001, p. 226.
(2) OJ L 55, 29.2.2000, p. 25.
(3) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2001)

1.
As long as no decision has been taken at Community level on the possible inclusion of an active
substance in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant
protection products on the market, Member States have to apply the criteria of Article 4 of the Directive
when granting authorizations. The Dutch authorities can only grant such authorizations when they have
established inter alia that the plant protection product has no unacceptable influence on the environment,
when properly used and having regard to all normal conditions under which it may be used.

The Dutch authorities can apply their own criteria in this respect as long as no decision on Annex I
2.
inclusion is taken at Community level; as soon as such a decision has been taken the Dutch authorities
have to apply strictly the criteria of Annex VI of the Directive (the so-called uniform principles). For any
decision taken, the most recent scientific and technical knowledge has to be taken into account.

3.
The Commission may decide to extend the deadline of July 2003 for certain active substances, as
provided for in the Directive. The Dutch authorities will have to withdraw existing national authorizations
for all active substances for which the deadline of July 2003 is not prolonged except for those cases where
a temporary exemption is granted in the framework of essential uses, as stipulated in Article 15 of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 451/2000 of 28 February 2000 laying down the detailed rules for the
implementation of the second and third stages of the work programme referred to in Article 8(2) of
Council Directive 91/414/EEC.

The Commission is aware of Court of justice case C-306/98 which deals with the requirements for
4.
the authorization of generic plant protection products. The opinion of the Advocate General is available
but the Court of justice has not yet given its opinion on this case. As soon as the opinion of the Court is
available, the Commission will examine whether it would have implications for the criteria to be applied
by Member States when authorizing plant protection products.

The Commission is convinced that the re-evaluation process will be accelerated as a result of the
5.
procedures adopted in Regulation (EC) No 451/2000. The Commission will
inform by July 2001 the
Parliament and Council, as provided in Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant
protection products on the market, on the progress of the re-evaluation programme.

(2001/C 174 E/259)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4157/00

by Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Exorbitant interest rate threshold in respect of bank interest in Italy

In Italy, the exorbitant interest rate threshold in respect of bank interest is formally laid down each quarter
by the Bank of Italy, as provided by Law No 108/96, thereby converting a fixed interest loan into a
variable interest loan. In a recent judgment of 17 November 2000, the Italian Court of Cassation ruled that
interest above the exorbitant interest rate threshold laid down by that Law was exorbitant and therefore
unlawful and illegal. However, that judgment went further, formulating the principle that anyone who had