Case C-359/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 4 August 2008 — Stichting Greenpeace Nederland v Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, other party: Pioneer Hi-Bred Northern Europe Sales Division
Date: 2008-08-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, access to information, agricultural area with environmental restrictions, environmental policy, genetically modified organism, interpretation of the law, land register, principle of proportionality, testing

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/19

Pleas in law and main arguments

Questions referred

The Commission claims that granting priority to the outgoing
licensee, upon renewal and granting of licences in respect of
infringes the principle of non-
works using hydraulic energy,
discrimination and hinders
freedom of establishment. By
favouring companies which have a licence and which are there-
fore established in France, French legislation makes the establish-
ment of companies set up in other Member States more diffi-
cult.

Moreover, the French authorities did not rely on the derogations
provided for in Articles 45 and 46 of the Treaty or overriding
reasons in the public interest in order to justify the measure in
question which was, in any event, disproportionate in the light
of the objective pursued. Accordingly, financial charges borne
by the outgoing licensee may, for example, be offset by other
obligations imposed on all new competitors.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State
(Netherlands)
lodged on 4 August 2008 — Stichting
Greenpeace Nederland v Minister van Volkshuisvesting,
Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, other party: Pioneer
Hi-Bred Northern Europe Sales Division

(Case C-359/08)

(2008/C 285/32)

1. Must the location of release of genetically modified organ-
isms which cannot be regarded as confidential by virtue of
Article 25(4) of Directive 2001/18/EC (1), in view inter alia of
the objective and general scheme of that Directive, be inter-
preted as referring to the parcel of land in the land register,
or is it sufficient for a larger geographical area to be indi-
cated?

2.

(a) If the indication of a larger geographical area is sufficient,
what circumstances may be included when it is decided
how the area is to be indicated?

(b) Is Directive 2003/4/EC (2) relevant in the determination

of the size of the area to be indicated?

(c) Does an area twenty times larger than the individual trial

fields satisfy the principle of proportionality?

3. Is the principle of proportionality satisfied if, pursuant to the
policy revised on 17 July 2008, a general indication of areas
one hundred times the individual trial fields is chosen?

4. If only a reference to an entry in the land register is suffi-
cient, can, despite the rule laid down in Article 25(4) of
Directive 2001/18/EC, a justification for treating confiden-
tially information on the precise location of release none the
less lie in the circumstances defined in Article 4(2) of Direc-
tive 2003/4/EC?

Language of the case: Dutch

5.

(a) Does Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC contain an

exhaustive list of justifications?

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stichting Greenpeace Nederland

(b) If so, can the protection of firms, including the persons
and products therein, and the prevention of sabotage for
the sake of the biotechnological development climate in
the Netherlands be subsumed under one of the justifica-
tions set out in Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC?

6. If the answers to Questions 5(a) and (b) are in the affirma-
tive, is the designation of an area twenty or one hundred
times the size of the trial field, in the light of Article 4(2)(h)
of Directive 2003/4/EC, proportionate having regard to the
protection of private interests (protection of firms, including
the persons and products therein), and of public interests
(prevention of sabotage for the sake of the biotechnological
development climate in the Netherlands)?

Defendant: Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening
en Milieubeheer

7.

Other party: Pioneer Hi-Bred Northern Europe Sales Division

(a) If the answer to Question 5(a)

is in the negative, do
including the persons and
the protection of
products therein, and the prevention of sabotage for the
sake of the biotechnological development climate in the
Netherlands form a permissible justification?

firms,

C 285/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.11.2008

(b) If the answer to Question 7(a) is in the affirmative, is
the designation of an area twenty or one hundred times
the size of the trial field proportionate having regard to
the protection of private interests (protection of firms,
including the persons and products therein) and of
public interests (prevention of sabotage for the sake of
the
in the
Netherlands)?

biotechnological

development

climate

(1) Directive 2001/18/EC of

the
Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environ-
ment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Direc-
tive 90/220/EEC (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1).

the European Parliament and of

(2) Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information
and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (OJ 2003 L 41, p. 26).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State
(Netherlands)
lodged on 4 August 2008 — Stichting
Greenpeace Nederland and Stichting ter Voorkoming
Misbruik Genetische Manipulatie ‘VoMiGen’ v Minister van
Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer,
other party: Pioneer Hi-Bred Northern Europe Sales
Division

(Case C-360/08)

(2008/C 285/33)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants:

1. Stichting Greenpeace Nederland

2. Stichting ter Voorkoming Misbruik Genetische Manipulatie

‘VoMiGen’

Questions referred

1. Must the location of release of genetically modified organ-
isms which cannot be regarded as confidential by virtue of
Article 25(4) of Directive 2001/18/EC (1), in view inter alia
of the objective and general scheme of that Directive, be
interpreted as referring to the parcel of
land in the land
register, or is it sufficient for a larger geographical area to be
indicated?

2.

(a) If the indication of a larger geographical area is sufficient,
what circumstances may be included when it is decided
how the area is to be indicated?

(b) Is Directive 2003/4/EC (2) relevant in the determination

of the size of the area to be indicated?

(c) Does an area twenty times larger than the individual trial

fields satisfy the principle of proportionality?

3. Is the principle of proportionality satisfied if, pursuant to the
policy revised on 17 July 2008, a general indication of areas
one hundred times the individual trial fields is chosen?

4. If only a reference to an entry in the land register is suffi-
cient, can, despite the rule laid down in Article 25(4) of
Directive 2001/18/EC, a justification for treating confiden-
tially information on the precise location of release none the
less lie in the circumstances defined in Article 4(2) of Direc-
tive 2003/4/EC?

5.

(a) Does Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC contain an

exhaustive list of justifications?

(b) If so, can the protection of firms, including the persons
and products therein, and the prevention of sabotage for
the sake of the biotechnological development climate in
the Netherlands be subsumed under one of the justifica-
tions set out in Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC?

6. If the answers to Questions 5(a) and (b) are in the affirma-
tive, is the designation of an area twenty or one hundred
times the size of the trial field, in the light of Article 4(2)(h)
of Directive 2003/4/EC, proportionate having regard to the
protection of private interests (protection of firms, including
the persons and products therein), and of public interests
(prevention of sabotage for the sake of the biotechnological
development climate in the Netherlands)?

Defendant: Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening
en Milieubeheer

7.

Other party: Pioneer Hi-Bred Northern Europe Sales Division

(a) If the answer to Question 5(a)

is in the negative, do
including the persons and
the protection of
products therein, and the prevention of sabotage for the
sake of the biotechnological development climate in the
Netherlands form a permissible justification?

firms,