- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-29/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln — Germany) — Biofa AG v Sikma D. Vertriebs GmbH und Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (UE) No 528/2012 — Article 3(1)(a) and (c) — Definitions of ‘biocidal product’ and ‘active substance’ — Conditions — Mode of action other than mere physical or mechanical action — Article 9(1)(a) — Approval of an active substance — Scope of approval)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020CA0029
62020CA0029
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
13.12.2021
Official Journal of the European Union
C 502/6
(Case C-29/20)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (UE) No 528/2012 - Article 3(1)(a) and (c) - Definitions of ‘biocidal product’ and ‘active substance’ - Conditions - Mode of action other than mere physical or mechanical action - Article 9(1)(a) - Approval of an active substance - Scope of approval)
(2021/C 502/09)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Biofa AG
Defendant: Sikma D. Vertriebs GmbH und Co. KG
Operative part of the judgment
The first indent of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 334/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014, read in conjunction with Article 3(1)(c) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that a product intended to destroy, deter or render harmless harmful organisms, which contains an active substance approved under an implementing regulation of the Commission, in accordance with Article 9(1)(a) of that regulation, does not, solely because of that approval, come under the definition of ‘biocidal product’ within the meaning of the first indent of Article 3(1)(a) of that regulation, with the result that it falls to the competent national court to ascertain whether that product satisfies all the conditions laid down by that provision in order to come under that definition. However, where the composition of that product is identical to the composition of the biocidal product presented as representative at the time of the application for approval of that active substance, that court is required to consider that that product comes under that definition.
(1) OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.