WRITTEN QUESTION P-0567/02 by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Disparities in the authorisation of plant protection products in the EU.
Date: 2002-02-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: approximation of laws, fruit, marketing, plant health legislation, plant health product, restriction on competition, vegetable

4.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 160 E/223

of the European Council states that ‘the employment rate targets of the European Union for 2005 and
2010 must be maintained and efforts must be accelerated to create more and better jobs and get more
people to work’.

Industries based on information technologies and more broadly on the development of knowledge are to
play a central part in achieving this objective. This is clearly indicated in research undertaken by the
Commission. Employment in Europe 2001 report points out that between 1995 and 2000, 1,5 million
jobs were created in the high-tech sector, and 5,5 million in the high-education sectors.

The report also showed at the same time new patterns of employment and growth in the European labour
markets. Employment content of growth has risen since 1985 ( an elasticity of employment growth to
the gross domestic product (GDP) growth twice that of 1980s.

(2002/C 160 E/284)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0567/02

by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 February 2002)

Subject: Disparities in the authorisation of plant protection products in the EU

The use of plant protection products by growers of fruit and vegetables is controlled differently in the
Member States of the European Union. Many of these products are banned in Germany but permitted in
neighbouring Member States.

Evidently, directives and regulations concerning consumer protection and the environment are being
interpreted differently in the individual Member States, as a result of which distortions of competition are
occurring in the EU.

What is the Commission’s general view of this problem?

What measures will the Commission take to eliminate these distortions of competition?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2002)

Council Directive 91/414/EEC on the placing of plant protection products on the market provides for a
harmonised Community system of evaluation of active substances at Community level and a system of
evaluation and authorisation of plant protection products containing those substances at national level.
The Directive, in its Annex VI, provides a set of Uniform Principles for risk assessment that Member States
must use when completing their evaluations. Pending the completion of Community evaluations and
Commission Decisions on individual active substances,
the Directive provides transitional measures
whereby Member States may continue to apply national criteria in granting authorisations as long as the
safety requirements in the Directive are met.

Differing uses and authorisations of plant protection products in the Member States can arise for several
reasons including (i) different marketing strategies by the companies producing the products (i.e. companies
might choose not to apply for authorisation of their products in certain Member States), (ii) different crops,
(iii) different pest pressures, (iv) different environmental conditions, and (v) the levels of environmental or
worker protection, higher than those laid down in the directive, that some Member States choose to apply
when evaluating requests for authorisations. The Commission does not feel that this situation resulted for
the moment in significant distortion of competition to the disadvantage of German farmers.

C 160 E/224

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.7.2002

For substances in Annex I to the Directive, then Article 10 of the Directive applies. This requires Member
States to give mutual recognition to products evaluated in accordance with the uniform principles and
containing only Annex I active substances, but permits them to impose conditions relating to the health
and safety of workers in accordance with Community law. Further, it allows dietary and environmental,
agricultural and plant health factors to be taken into account. However, where authorisation based on
mutual recognition is refused on these latter grounds, the Commission must be informed and a decision
then taken under the comitology procedures in the Directive to determine whether or not the Member
State was correct to refuse authorisation on the basis of the different circumstances between the Member
State which gave the original authorisation and the Member State where mutual recognition is sought.
Once the Directive is fully applicable (i.e. all active substances in Annex I and uniform principles fully
applied), this means that Member States could not refuse approval except where this is justified by
objective differences.

With the exception of the above case, the Commission does not have the competence to intervene unless
the Directive is not being respected and the Commission has no evidence that this is currently the case.
The question of eventual market distortion could be addressed when the Directive is amended. The
Commission intends to propose such an amendment to the Council and Parliament late in 2002.

(2002/C 160 E/285)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0623/02

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 March 2002)

Subject: Mistakes and delays in projects despite being covered by a framework fixed in advance

Projects which, for various reasons, are not operative or are judged not to be viable are commonplace in
Greece. Lack of data, mistakes in studies,
incomplete planning and failings in checks carried out by
Commission officials have been noted, all of which have had disastrous results in terms of the economy,
natural resources and the environment. Typical examples are the Egnatia Highway, the sewage treatment
plant at Ermioni, the hydroelectric plant at Ilariona on the River Aliakmonas, the Smokoovo dam, the
tunnels at Mouzaki and Pyli Trikalon, the reservoirs on Kalymnos and Lipsi, the forest village at Xanthi and
the dams in Aitolo-Akarnia and Parthenio, Leros. Reports frequently appear in the Greek press concerning
these projects (e.g. To Vima of 17 February 2002).

Given that management and monitoring have not been carried out in the optimal manner, will the
Commission say:

1. what penalties will be imposed on those responsible and the Community officials who carried out the
relevant checks in view of the large sums invested in projects and constructions which will never
come into operation even though they are finished, such as the Goura bridge and the Metsovo tunnel,
and

2. what measures it has taken or proposes to take in response to the failure to complete the above

projects and the lack of clarity concerning their cost and the timetable for delivery?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2002)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.