WRITTEN QUESTION E-3465/03 by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Dichlofluanid.
Date: 2003-11-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: animal health, chemical product, environmental protection, health risk, marketing, public health, wood industry

C 78 E/816

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Nevertheless, the European Court of Justice has ruled that, as regards the application of Article 3 and
Article 81 of the EC Treaty to price rules, it must be observed that the purpose of such rules is not to
compel traders to conclude agreements or to take any other action of the kind prohibited by Article 81(1)
of the EC Treaty, but to entrust responsibility in pricing matters to the public authorities (5) and that
Article 3 and Article 81 do not prohibit the adoption by Member States of such national rules providing
for retail sale prices to be fixed by the public authorities (6).

From the point of view of the EC Treaty rules on free movement of goods (Articles 28-30), it should be
noted that the maximum profit margin must be calculated on the basis of a purchase price which takes
into account the import and procurement costs effectively borne by the retailers, in this way neutralizing
the impact of distance and avoiding obstacles to commercial exchanges contrary to Article 28 of the EC
Treaty (7).

(1) Amended by Market Decrees 16/1991 and 2/1992.
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of 18 May 1972 on the common organization of the market in fruit and
vegetables, OJ L 118, 20.5.1972 which was replaced in 1996 by Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96, of
28 October 1996, OJ L 297, 21.11.1996.
Judgment of 17 January 1980 in Joined Cases 95 and 96/79 Kefer and Delmelle (1980) ECR, p. 103.

(3)
(4) Council Regulation (EEC) No 26/62 applying certain rules of competition to production of and trade in agricultural

products, OJ B 30, 20.4.1962.
Judgment of 2 July 1985 in Case 188/86 Lefevre ((1987)) ECR 2963.
Judgment of 29 January 1985 in Case 231/83 Cullet v. Leclerc ((1985)) ECR 305.
Judgment of 24 January 1978 in Case 82/77, Openbaar Ministerie v. Van Tiggele, (1978) ECR 25.

(5)
(6)
(7)

(2004/C 78 E/0866)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3465/03

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 November 2003)

Subject: Dichlofluanid

Does the Commission believe that there is sufficient scientific evidence to justify a ban on dichlofluanid?
If so, does the Commission have any plans to ban the use of dichlofluanid as a non-professional wood
preservative in urban environments?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2004)

Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 16 February 1998 regulates the placing of biocidal
products, such as wood preservatives, on the market (1). The Directive provides (cid:1) among others (cid:1) for a
ten-year review programme of all active substances, which were used in biocidal products before 14 May
2000 (the so-called ‘existing’ active substances), in order to establish that they do not have unacceptable
effects on the environment and on human or animal health.

According to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 (2), all active substances had to be identified by
28 March 2002 and economic operators interested to continue placing their active substances on the
market had to notify them by the same date (3). Notified substances will be evaluated in view of their
possible inclusion in Annexes I or IA of the Directive if their impact on human and animal health and the
environment is found to be acceptable. Active substances that are only identified will have to be phased
out by 1 September 2006 at the latest.

The active substance dichlofluanid has been notified for use in product types 7 (film preservatives), 8 (wood
preservatives), 10 (masonry preservatives) and 21 (antifouling products). Complete dossiers for active
substances used in wood preservatives (and rodenticides) are scheduled to be evaluated first, and will have
to be submitted by 28 March 2004. The United Kingdom has been designated as the Rapporteur Member
State.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/817

Dichlofluamid can be placed on the market in accordance with the current practice in the Member States
until the evaluation of the dossier is completed and a decision has been taken on its inclusion or not, as
the case may be, in annex I or IA of the Directive. If the evaluation results in unacceptable risks, the
substance will not be included in an annex of the Directive and it will no longer be possible to use it in
wood preservatives. If the risks are found acceptable dichofluanid will be included in the appropriate
Interested parties can
annex, together with all conditions or restrictions that are deemed necessary.
subsequently apply for authorisation/registration of wood preservatives containing the substance.

(1) OJ L 123, 24.4.1998.
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of the programme referred to
in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and of the Council on biocidal products (Text with EEA
relevance), OJ L 228, 8.9.2000.

(3) The deadline of 28 March 2002 was extended by Commission Regulation (EC) 1687/2002 until 31 January 2003,
for the notification of substances that had only been identified, or substances that had been notified only for certain
product types.

(2004/C 78 E/0867)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3475/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject: Protection of the Caretta caretta turtle

Despite repeated expressions of concern regarding the Caretta caretta turtle in Zakynthos, and the decision
regarding the operation of the Zakynthos marine park, the situation, according to reliable information,
appears to be worsening rather than improving. Following the Commission’s recent contacts, visits and
inspections can it indicate what results were obtained and what action it intends to take to ensure progress
regarding protection for the turtle and the practical functioning of the marine park?

(2004/C 78 E/0868)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3507/03

by Paul Lannoye (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(25 November 2003)

Subject: Protection of loggerhead turtles in Greece

It has been clearly shown that there has been no progress in the development of the Maríne Park on
Zakynthos and the measures to protect the loggerhead turtle, negotiated and funded by the Commission,
level and from the Greek
and that they have, on the contrary, met with opposition, both at local
Government.

Can the Commission confirm this information? What was the outcome of the recent on-site inspections
carried out by the Commission?

(2004/C 78 E/0869)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3528/03

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject: Protection of the caretta (cid:1) caretta turtle

Will the Commission give the results of its recent inspection of the maritime park of Zakynthos (Greece)
and the protection of the caretta (cid:1) caretta turtle?