CELEX: C2006/281/21
Language: en
Date: 2006-11-18 00:00:00
Title: Case C-138/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands ) — Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (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)

18.11.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 281/13
            
         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands ) — Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
   (Case C-138/05) (1)
   
   (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 281/21)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven
   Parties to the main proceedings
   
      Applicant: Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie
   
      Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
   
      Intervener: LTO Nederland
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Articles 4, 8(2) and (3) and 23 of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1) — Interpretation of Article 16 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 (OJ 1998 L 123, p. 1) — Prior authorisation of placing on the market — Period prescribed for transposition elapsed — Application by the national court — Authorisation for placing on the market products already there two years after the directive was notified — Re-examination of the products
   Operative part of the judgment
   
               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 has the same meaning as Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414 does not constitute a ‘standstill’ obligation. However, the second paragraph of Article 10 EC and the third paragraph of Article 249 EC, and Directive 91/414, require that during the transitional period prescribed in Article 8(2) of that directive the Member States refrain from adopting any measures liable seriously to compromise the result prescribed by that directive. More specifically, Member States may not, during that transitional period, amend the legislation applicable in such a manner as to allow themselves to authorise a plant protection product which comes within the scope of that provision, without duly considering the effects which that product might have on human and animal health and on the environment. Likewise, a decision relating to an authorisation may be taken only on the basis of a dossier comprising all necessary information enabling a genuine assessment of those effects to be made.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414 is to be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State authorises 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.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               It is for the national court to assess whether the evaluation carried out pursuant to Article 16aa of the Law on pesticides of 1962 (Bestrijdingsmiddelenwet), as amended by the Law of 6 February 2003, corresponds to all the characteristics of a ‘review’ within the meaning of Article 8(3) of Directive 91/414, in particular those referred to in paragraphs 53 and 54 of the present judgment.
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Article 8(3) of Directive 91/414 is to be interpreted as meaning that it contains only provisions relating to the provision of data prior to a review.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 143, 11.06.2005.