11.6.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/22

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by order of that court of 22 March 2005 in Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit(intervener: LTO Nederland)

(Case C-138/05)

(2005/C 143/31)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) of 22 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 25 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie and Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (intervener: LTO Nederland) on the following questions:

1.

May Article 8 of the Plant Protection Products Directive (1) be applied by the national court after the period referred to in Article 23 thereof has expired?

2.

Must Article 16 of the Biocidal Product Directive (2) be interpreted as having the same meaning as Article 8(2) of the Plant Protection Products Directive?

3.

Must Article 8(2) of the Plant Protection Products Directive be interpreted as a standstill obligation in the sense that a Member State has the power to alter the existing system or practice only in so far as this results in an assessment in connection with the authorisation of plant protection products which is consistent with this directive?

4.

If the answer to Question 3 is in the negative:

Does Article 8(2) of the Plant Protection Products Directive impose limits on amendments to national rules concerning the placing on the market of biocidal products, and if so what limits?

5.

If the answer to Question 4 is in the negative:

By what criteria is it necessary to assess whether there are measures liable seriously to compromise achievement of the result prescribed by the directive?

6.

If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative:

(a)

Must Article 8(2) of the Plant Protection Products Directive be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State authorises the placing on the market in its territory of plant protection products containing active substances not listed in Annex I to that directive that were already on the market two years after the date of notification of that directive, regard must also be had to the provisions of Article 4 thereof?

(b)

Must Article 8(2) of the Plant Protection Products Directive also be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State authorises the placing on the market in its territory of plant protection products containing active substances not listed in Annex I to that directive that were already on the market two years after the date of notification of that directive, regard must also be had to the provisions of Article 8(3) thereof?

7.

Must Article 8(3) of the Plant Protection Products Directive be interpreted as meaning that an examination of an new application of a plant protection product already on the market, whereby it is considered whether there are unacceptable risks to the operator/worker, human health and the environment in connection with a temporary measure as referred to in Article 16aa of the Law on Pesticides, is to be regarded as a review within the meaning of Article 8(3) thereof?

8.

Must Article 8(3) of the Plant Protection Products Directive be interpreted as meaning that it contains only rules relating to the provision of data before a review or must it be construed as meaning that the requirements set out therein are also relevant to the way in which a review must be organised and carried out?

(1)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ L 230, 19/08/1991 p. 1)

(2)  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 L 123, 24/04/1998 p. 1)