Inhoudsopgave van deze pagina:
Delen
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market
At its meeting on 24 April 2008, COREPER examined the above proposal on the basis of the report
from the Working Party of Agricultural Counsellors/Attachés (8423/08).
The results of this examination are summarised below.
º
º º
-
1.Mutual recognition of authorisations
The Presidency requested delegations which had maintained reservations on Articles 35(3), 1
39(2) and 40 to support the current text of the draft Regulation (annexed to the report ).
1
This document is currently being translated. Only the English version is available for the time being.
· As regards Article 35(3), the ES, PT and FR delegations announced that they were prepared to re-examine their position if a revision clause was provided for. The
AT delegation maintained its objections at this stage but said that such a clause could
help it to modify its position. The DK delegation lifted its reservation on the word
"serious" in the last line of the second sentence of paragraph 3.
· As regards Article 39(2), the LU delegation, supported by MT, requested the addition of a new subparagraph worded as follows:
"In case the authorisation holder refuses its consent, the competent authority of the Member State concerned may accept the application, on grounds of public interest."
The IT delegation withdrew its objections concerning this article. It also showed interest in the idea of inserting a revision clause in Article 35(3).
· The HU delegation, whose concerns were broadly shared by EE, maintained its reservation on the principle of mutual recognition combined with the division of the
Member States into three zones.
The Presidency concluded the discussions on this item and requested delegations to state their final positions on the current text of Articles 35, 39 and 40 supplemented by LU's proposed
addition, as well as on a revision clause as suggested by the ES delegation, by the
Committee's next meeting.
-
2.Criteria for approval of active substances
The Commission, supported by the FR, SE, DK, FIN and EE delegations, objected strongly on public health grounds to the text of Annex II, point 3.6.
The other delegations either defended this compromise text or considered that it could be made acceptable by means of some improvements. They took the view that it made for a good
balance between health protection and plant protection.
The Presidency concluded that the Committee would return to this question at the next meeting. It invited delegations and, more particularly, the Commission (which would have to
adjust the text of Annex II), to resume the discussion in as constructive a spirit as possible.
-
3.Data protection
The Commission, supported by FR, IE and to some extent IT, maintained its reservation on Article 56, stating the view that the current provisions posed the risk of damaging competition
and restricting the availability of plant protection products.
The Committee noted that the Commission would present observations in writing on this question at the Committee's next meeting.
-
4.Other reservations (mentioned in part IIB of the report)
The Presidency requested delegations which had maintained reservations on other items to re-examine their position so as to be able to lift them at the Committee's next meeting.
The following reservations were already lifted:
· FR lifted its reservations concerning Articles 29a, 48, 49a and 64. Conversely, it confirmed that it would maintain its reservations concerning Articles 39 and 47a (seed
treatment and treated seeds).
· SE lifted its reservations on Articles 39, 48 and 65.
· RO endorsed the text of Articles 47a and 52.
· DE withdrew its reservation on Article 48 but maintained its reservation on Article 65.
· The Commission endorsed the text of Article 14.
· IT withdrew its reservation concerning Article 59.
· DK announced that it was ready to lift all its reservations except for the parliamentary scrutiny reservation.
_________________
