Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62009CN0266

Case C-266/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (The Netherlands) lodged on 10 June 2009 — Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Vereniging Milieudefensie, Vereniging Goede Waar & Co. v College voor het toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden, other parties: Bayer CropScience BV and Nederlandse Stichting voor Fytofarmacie

OJ C 267, 7.11.2009, p. 26–26 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

7.11.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/26

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (The Netherlands) lodged on 10 June 2009 — Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Vereniging Milieudefensie, Vereniging Goede Waar & Co. v College voor het toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden, other parties: Bayer CropScience BV and Nederlandse Stichting voor Fytofarmacie

(Case C-266/09)

2009/C 267/47

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants

:

 

Stichting Natuur en Milieu

 

Vereniging Milieudefensie

 

Vereniging Goede Waar & Co

Defendants

:

College voor het toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden

Other parties

:

 

Bayer CropScience BV

 

Nederlandse Stichting voor Fytofarmacie

Questions referred

1.

Must the term ‘environmental information’ in Article 2 of Directive 2003/4/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that it includes information submitted within the framework of a national procedure for the authorisation, or the extension of the authorisation, of a plant protection product with a view to setting the maximum quantity of a pesticide, a component thereof or reaction products which may be present in food or beverages?

2.

If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, what is the relationship between Article 14 of Directive 91/414/EEC (2) and Directive 2003/4/EC in so far as it is relevant to application to information as defined in the previous question, and specifically, is that relationship such that Article 14 of Directive 91/414/EEC may be applied only if such application does not detract from the obligations laid down in Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC?

3.

If it follows from the answers to the first and second questions above that the defendant is bound in the present case to apply Article 4 of Directive 2003/4/EC, does Article 4 of that directive mean that the weighing prescribed in that provision of the general interest served by disclosure against the specific interest served by the refusal to disclose should take place at application level or that it may be effected in national legislation?

(1)  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).

(2)  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)

Top