31.10.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 311/69

(1)

Annex I to Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) contained the list of active substances approved at Union level for inclusion in biocidal products. Commission Directives 2008/78/EC (3) and 2008/79/EC (4) added the active substances propiconazole and IPBC, respectively, for use in products belonging to product-type 8, wood preservatives, as defined in Annex V to Directive 98/8/EC. By virtue of Article 86 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, those substances are therefore approved active substances included in the list referred to in Article 9(2) of that Regulation.

(2)

In accordance with Article 8 of Directive 98/8/EC, the company Janssen PMP submitted applications to the United Kingdom for authorisation of three wood preservative biocidal products containing IPBC and propiconazole (‘the contested products’). The product authorisations granted by the United Kingdom covered different application methods, including automated dipping for industrial use and spraying (indoors and outdoors) for professional and non-professional use. A number of Member States have subsequently authorised the contested products through mutual recognition.

(3)

Janssen PMP (‘the applicant’) submitted complete applications to Germany for mutual recognition of the authorisations of the contested products granted by the United Kingdom.

(4)

Germany notified the Commission, the other Member States and the applicant on 28 August 2013 of its proposal to restrict the authorisations in accordance with Article 4(4) of Directive 98/8/EC. Germany considers that the contested products do not meet the requirements of Article 5(1) of Directive 98/8/EC with regard to human health and the environment.

(5)

According to Germany, the authorisation of the application method by spraying outdoors was not appropriately assessed by the United Kingdom in terms of environmental risks. The assessment performed by Germany for the three products concluded in unacceptable risks for the distant soil compartment.

(6)

Germany also considers that for one of the products, the application by automated dipping should be limited to systems with a sufficiently high degree of automation due to unacceptable risks for the health of professional users.

(7)

The Commission invited the other Member States and the applicant to submit comments to the notifications in writing within 90 days in accordance with Article 27(1) of Directive 98/8/EC. Comments were submitted within that deadline by Germany, the United Kingdom and the applicant. The notification was also discussed between the Commission and Member States' Competent Authorities for biocidal products on 24 September 2013 in the meeting of the coordination group established under Article 35 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012.

(8)

With regard to the risks for the environment, from those discussions and comments it follows that the conclusions of the environmental assessment carried out by the United Kingdom were based on the relevant scenario of the Series on Emission Scenario Documents of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (5) available at the time of the evaluation.

(9)

It also follows that the conclusions from Germany are based on a revised scenario of the OECD Series on Emission Scenario Documents (6), available since the authorisations were granted by the United Kingdom and also since the notification made by Germany.

(10)

In addition, according to agreed guidance by the 47th meeting of representatives of Members States Competent Authorities for the implementation of Directive 98/8/EC concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (7), new guidance can only be taken into consideration if it was available before the date of submission of the application for product authorisation, unless scientific progress shows that the reliance on old guidance gives rise to serious concern. This guidance further establishes that a serious concern would trigger revision of existing authorisations. However, neither the United Kingdom nor the other Member States having approved the products through mutual recognition considered that the concern was such as to justify a revision of existing authorisations.

(11)

In the light of the above comments, the Commission supports the conclusions of the evaluation carried out by the United Kingdom and the other Member States having approved the products through mutual recognition, considering that the contested products fulfil the requirements set by Article 5(1) of Directive 98/8/EC with regard to the environment. The Commission therefore considers that the request by Germany to restrict the authorisations cannot be justified on the grounds put forward.

(12)

With regard to the application by automated dipping, the Commission considers that the contested product should be subject to the provisions established by a previous Commission Decision (8) addressing the protection of the health of professional users when applying IPBC containing products by this application method. Consequently, the contested product should be authorised subject to instructions on the label restricting the use to fully automated dipping processes and the product authorisation should be amended accordingly.

(13)

Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 applies to the contested product in accordance with the provisions of Article 92(2) of that Regulation. Since the legal basis for this Decision is Article 36(3) of that Regulation, this Decision should be addressed to all Member States by virtue of Article 36(4) of that Regulation.

(14)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,