1.

Does the Member State concerned, which decides on the authorisation of a plant protection product under Article 36(2) of Regulation 1107/2009, (1) have any discretion to depart from the assessment of the zonal rapporteur Member State that examined the application under Article 36(1) of Regulation 1107/2009 and, if so, what is the margin of that discretion?

2.

If the answer to the first question is that the Member State concerned has no or limited discretion, how is the right to an effective remedy under Article 47 of the Charter given effect? Is it then possible for the correctness of the zonal rapporteur Member State’s assessment to be fully challenged before the national court of the Member State concerned?

3.

If the Member State concerned, or the court of that Member State, concludes that the zonal rapporteur Member State’s assessment is based on insufficient grounds, to what extent is the Member State concerned required to involve the zonal rapporteur Member State in preparing an adequately reasoned assessment?

4.

Can the zonal rapporteur Member State confine itself to an assessment based exclusively on adopted guidance documents, even if the scientific and technical knowledge contained therein is no longer fully up to date?

5.

If the answer to the previous question is in the negative, can the Member State carrying out the zonal assessment additionally rely on scientific and technical knowledge contained in guidance documents which have already been drawn up but not yet adopted, or must the Member State carrying out the zonal assessment take account of all scientific and technical knowledge available even outside of the guidance documents?