Luxembourg, 13/11/2007 (Agence Europe) - Importers of plant protection products - by and large, pesticides and herbicides - must have a marketing authorisation issued by the country to be able to import such products. If the products are for the exclusive use of the importer and they already have authorisation in the country, the procedure can be simplified, but must nonetheless be followed. Such was the decision of the Court of Justice in its ruling of 8 November in joined cases C-260/06 and C-261/06.
Messrs Escalier and Bonnarel, winegrowers, established in France, appealed against the judgment that had gone against them for having in their possession, and using, pesticidal products designed for agricultural use which did not have a marketing authorisation in France. These products, which were bought in Spain, were to be used exclusively on their vines. The winegrowers pointed out that the products at issue had already obtained a marketing authorisation in France in favour of other importers or were similar to reference products authorised in France. The Montpellier Appeal Court, to which the case was referred, asked the European Court of Justice about the interpretation of directive 91/414/EEC (1991) on the marketing of plant protection products. The Court of Justice pointed out that the directive had to be transposed so as to provide a high level of protection against risks to humans, animals and the environment, but applied only to the extent necessary to achieve these objectives. It was in the light of this balance that the case was heard.
The Court stated immediately that all importers must be subject to control. Even though the, sometimes dangerous, products are for the sole use of the importer, the fact remains that they are for use within the member state of import; there is no reason, therefore, to allow parallel imports to be exempted from procedures. The Court acknowledged, however, that the procedure should be simplified if the products in question had already been issued with an import authorisation. It was, therefore, up to the member state of import to limit the requirements on the importer in this hypothetical case of parallel import within a simplified procedure, which must not, in the light of the principle of proportionality, go beyond the submission of a marketing authorisation application. In addition, the time taken by the competent authority to reach a decision must be no longer than is strictly necessary for the examination of that application. With regard to the requirement to pay a charge of €800, the Court felt it was up to the French court to determine whether this tax was appropriate in the light of costs incurred in dealing with the importer's request. (C.D.)