Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  10 November 2005  in Case C-316/04, Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie v College voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen (Authorisation for the placing of plant protection and biocidal products on the market — Directive 91/414/EEC — Article 8 — Directive 98/8/EC — Article 16 — Power of Member States during the transitional period)
Date: 2006-01-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: chemical product, environmental protection, exchange of information, interpretation of the law, market approval, marketing standard, pharmaceutical product, plant health legislation, plant health product

C 10/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.1.2006

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 168, 26.6.2004.

the placing on the market on its territory of plant protection
products containing active substances not referred to in Annex I to
that directive that were already on the market two years after the
date of notification of the directive, it is not required to comply
with the provisions of Article 4 or Article 8(3) of that directive.

3. Article 16(1) of Directive 98/8 has the same meaning as Article

8(2) of Directive 91/414.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 10 November 2005

4. It

is for

the national court

to assess whether the evaluation
provided for in Article 25d(2) of the Law on pesticides of 1962
(Bestrijdingsmiddelenwet) corresponds to all the characteristics of a
'review' within the meaning of Article 8(3) of Directive 91/414.

5. Article 8(3) of Directive 91/414 must be interpreted as meaning
that it contains only provisions relating to the provision of data
prior to a review.

in Case C-316/04, Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Nether-
lands) Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie v College
voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen (1)

6. There is no need to answer Question 1.

(1) OJ C 239 of 25.09.2004.

(Authorisation for
the placing of plant protection and
biocidal products on the market — Directive 91/414/EEC —
Article 8 — Directive 98/8/EC — Article 16 — Power of
Member States during the transitional period)

(2006/C 10/07)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(Fourth Chamber)

of 10 November 2005

In Case C-316/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijf-
sleven (Netherlands), made by decision of 22 July 2004,
received at the Court on 26 July 2004,
in the proceedings
between Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie and College
voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen, in the presence of
3M Nederland BV and Others — the Court (Second Chamber),
composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber,
J. Makarczyk, R. Schintgen, G. Arestis
and J. Klučka
(Rapporteur),
Jacobs, Advocate General; M.
Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judg-
ment on 10 November 2005, in which it ruled:

Judges;

F.G.

1. Article 16(1) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing
of biocidal products on the market must be interpreted as meaning
that it does not constitute a 'standstill' obligation. However, the
second paragraph of Article 10 EC and the third paragraph of
Article 249 EC, and Directive 98/8, require that during the tran-
sitional period prescribed in Article 16(1) of that directive the
Member States refrain from adopting any measures liable seriously
to compromise the result prescribed by that directive.

2. Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991
concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market
is to be interpreted as meaning that if a Member State authorises

in Case C-385/04: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
2001/16/EC — Trans-European Networks — Interoperability
of the trans-European conventional rail system — Failure to
transpose within the period prescribed)

(2006/C 10/08)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-385/04, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: W. Wils) v United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland (Agent: C. White) — action under Article 226
EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 7 September
2004 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Schie-
mann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts and E. Levits
(Rapporteur),
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R.
Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 November 2005, in
which it: