importation médicament vétérinaire


importation of veterinary medicine



La question des importations personnelles de Produits PhytoPharmaceutiques (PPP) par les agriculteurs est enfin portée devant la CJCE. ( communiqué ) 02 juin 2006

The question of " own-use " parallel imports of Plant Protection Products (PPP) by the users - farmers is finally brought to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). ( Press-release ) 02 June 2006



Défi lancé au marché unique européen

L'affaire C-100/96


Challenge to the single market

the British Agrochemical case

Importation pour usage personnel


Own use parallel import










PSD-parallel imports

'Complete text'

Directive 91/414

ECJ judgment C-100/96
C-100/96 en français

High Court judgment

Mr Justice Richard

[Just. Rich. en français]

Zimovane case - en
Zimovane C94/98 - fr

EU Parliementary questions

Market transparency in agriculture

Exhaustion of trade mark rights 1998

Exhaustion of trade mark rights (1) 2000

Exhaustion of trade mark rights (2) 2000

Admissibility of parallel imports 2000

Questions parlementaires EU


Epuisement du droit conféré par le marque 1998


Epuisement du droit conféré par la marque (1) 2000

Epuisement du droit conféré par la marque (2) 2000

Autorisation des importations parallèles 2000

Facts - figures

Overview of Pesticide Industry

Flow of pesticides to farmers - UK dpt environment





b.bodson_trends-tendances_12 november 1998_chardons dans l herbe verte_fr

B.Bodson_trends-tendances_12 november 1998_thistles in the green grass_uk


anne gillet_la france agricole_26 june 1998_Reglementation des produits phytos


cd_circuits culture_july 1998_audace reprend le flamheau des importateurs de phytos


guy laluc_fruits et legumes_sept1998


magasin agricole_september 1998_audace part a la conquete des dysfonctionnements du marche phyto


anne gilet_la france agricole_6 november 1998_la france rique d etre condamnée par la commission européenne_fr


circuit culture_9 november 1998_importations de phytos_vers une autorisation simplifiée_fr


Agrow N316 13 November 1998.pdf   


daniel roques_press release_26 june 1998_fr_oui a l homologation protectrice de la sante et de l environnement non a celle protectrice des interets de l industrie


UIPP.claire morin_press release_25 june 1998_fr_oui a la libre circulation non a leur libre commercialisation


daniel roques_22 september 1997_proposition de reglementation de l homologation des produits phytosanitaires en france conformement aux imperatifs


daniel roques_lettre de mise en demeure de la france_paris 03 november 1998_fr.


daniel roques_formal letter of warning to france_paris 03 november 1998_uk


Sénat_Bernard Fournier_Séance du 9 décembre 1998_import parallel


No common prices for farmers in the common market! - CEJA


LCaillaud_Agrodistribution_Bagarre sur les génériques_mars-avril 1999


AUDACE letter to farmers in the United Kingdom


Daniel Roques_lettre a Mr R Mestres_18 mars 1999_fr


R Mestres_lettre a D Roques AUDACE_15 avril 1999_fr


PSD News Release: Ruling on Pesticides Parallel Imports


Daniel Roques_lettre a Mme M Decoin PHYTOMA_22 avril 1999_fr


Daniel Roques_lettre a Mr A Vernede_11 mai 1999_fr


Daniel Roques_lettre a Mr R Mestres_18 mai 1999_fr


Circuits Culture Mai 1999 - Phytos: bilan 1998


Agrow 28May1999 N329 page9.pdf


D Roques_lettre a Mr A Vernede_14juin1999_fr_dernière réunion paquet Administration Française invitée par la DGXV en relation avec l'infraction A/97/4806


AUDACE communiqué press release_25aout1999     English  


ARGOS n°109 janvier 2001 AUDACE répond aux questions


L'Arrêt de la Cour d'Appel de Douai du 8 février 2000



Presse release following the Order N° 2001-317 of 4 April 2001 


communiqué suite au Décret N° 2001-317 du 4 avril 2001




Nach dem gerichtlichen Erfolg von AUDACE...



...the state of affairs regarding crop protection products with regard to the successful court cases engineered by AUDACE







Défi lancé au marché unique européen

L'affaire C-100/96


>  Farmers should benefit from trade liberalisation by shopping around for the cheapest inputs whiles competing on the world market for their produce

>  Transnational corporations that dominate the world markets for food and health products should not be allowed to set prices per country


montage4.gif (74839 bytes)

The industry seeks changes to PSD's arrangements for parallel imports of pesticides into the UK


UIPP : oui a la libre circulation non a leur libre commercialisation


Farmers are price takers and they are operating in an increasingly competitive environment


Florence bal_cultivar_16 february 1995_du rififi dans les phytos


assistance for a translation ?

contact the webmaster


eliminer les dangereux et les illegaux_cultivar 16 may 1995_fr


They want you to pay the highest price !

Whereas they shop around the world for cheap labour, cheap inputs and mobile capital.


avis-douane française


Let us have transparency in transfer pricing !

Let us have transparency in R&D costs !


IMPORTATEUR CONDAMNE_circuits culture_avril 1997_fr



Globalization for whom ?
A qui doit profiter la globalisation ?

Will farmers or consumers benefit from trade liberalisation ?

Questions to Commissionner Pascal LAMY



Are patents

(the state of the art) always implemented ?



26th Oct 2000 :

The association AUDACE denounces a sophism and asks its authors to justify themselves

The assertions according to which differences in plant protection product formulations would be justified taking into consideration climatic, agronomic and/or, in general, health or environmental conditions specific to each EU Member State amounts to a pure sophism skilfully fostered by the manufacturers.

Certain competent authorities, administrative and judicial, national and European however appear not to be convinced yet of this reality and while agreeing that one same formulation must be authorised on the whole territory of a State where, however, there exist extremely different climates and soils, they deny the right for that formulation to be used systematically on the territories of other Member States.

In order to close this controversy, could the manufacturers and/or competent authorities quote only one product among the thousands of specialities authorised in Europe for which the need for different formulations between the States would be scientifically proven ?

The absence of response to this request should put an end to a long and unbearable polemic bringing benefit only to the marketing aims of transnational corporations.














































Challenge to the single market

the British Agrochemical case


Durant l'été 2000 AUDACE dépose une plainte contre le Royaume Unis auprès de la Commission européenne ! Mais moi je suis français, suis-je concerné ?

Why AUDACE filed a complaint against the UK ?

Parallel importing, that is the importation of a product through channels other than those arranged between the manufacturer of the product and its authorised distributors, is generally considered to promote price competition in a market.

Not surprisingly, parallel imports are opposed by some manufacturers, who seek to engage in significant price discrimination by geographic area.

Not surprisingly then, that in order to maintain their monopolist profits on the EU market, multinational producers within the British Agrochemicals Association Ltd (BAA), now called Crop Protection Association (CPA), attempted to constrain PSD's approval procedures and condition of approval for parallel imports, (indeed, the UK had been the first member state to implement such legislation in the eighties and this had a direct influence on other member states), and judicially reviewed the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 's interpretation of EC Council Directive 91/414 concerning the marketing of plant protection products.

This case was not resolved in the High Court in London and was referred to the European Court of Justice (case later to be known as C-100/96). On the 11 March 1999 the ECJ ruled clearly in favour of parallel imports.

Following this judgment PSD amended its 'arrangements'  in April 1999. AUDACE was satisfied [AUDACE's first letter to Bristish farmers sent to the UK agricultural press October 1999].


Some months later, after the case had come back to the UK, a judgment was handed down by Mr Justice Richards in the High Court on 4th November.


AUDACE disputes the terms of this judgment which eludes the questions referred to the ECJ (what C-100/96 says precisely) as it eludes the directive (what the dir 91/414 says) and confuses the issues of safety and protection of the environment with that of competition rules (detail of Mr Justice Richard's judgment)


PSD appealed, 

yet, on the 19th November 1999, PSD gives in, and requires exact equivalence:

T'he judgment requires that PSD should insist on exact equivalence of formulations to establish the identicality of the parallel import to the master product.' (says PSD)


Clearly, this meant:

  • issuance of parallel import registrations came to a stand still

  • transnational producers insisting on exact equivalence introduced miner changes to formulations leading to 'commercial withdrawals of registrations' 

  • new products introduced in different member states increased market segmentation and monopoly profit

  • so called 'new, improved formulations' of existing products appear, but not in every national market, so that they have the primary effect of preventing parallel import

  • the industry (CPA) stand point is based on the judgement of 4th November 1999 (of which AUDACE disputes the terms in respect of ECJ C-100/96) and on the need for differences in formulations between Member States, when in fact there exists as many agronomic and climatic differences on the territory of one Member State as there are between states, whereas the registration of a formulation is national (this unbearable polemic around formulations and climatic or environmental conditions brings benefit only to the marketing aims of transnational corporations)

In the Community law, these issues have for the most part been framed in terms of article 30 of the EC Treaty dealing with the free movement of goods. The Commission has fought consistently against the industry's ever growing demand for Intellectual Property (IP) protection probably not so much because of any opposition to IP rights per se, but more that any outcome that might be perceived to partition the market would run counter to the underlying goal of a single common market. The jurisprudence of the ECJ consistently supports the Commission's position.

Case C-94/98 of 16th December 1999 known as the Zimovane [zimovane  explained] case puts it squarely and leaves no room for producers to modulate their formulations in view of partitioning the market.

However, in the course of summer 2000 AUDACE was left with no alternative and filed a complaint with the EU Commission.

Parallel importers make their purchases in the national markets where goods are cheapest, and import them into countries with higher prices. This price competition for the same good is an advantage for consumers. Likewise, farmers can benefit from trade liberalisation by shopping around for the cheapest inputs whiles competing on the world market for their produce. Parallel imports can be an important source of price competition for many goods.

There is particular interest for imports in pharmaceuticals and agrochemicals. Those products have a large and captive customer base and high profit potentials and their distribution is heavily regulated in every country. At the same time world markets for food and health products are dominated by fewer than ten Multinational Enterprises and this number is declining rapidly.



Juillet 2001                 

La situation relative aux produits phytosanitaires en regard des succès judiciaires dont l'association AUDACE a été l'artisan 

Information on the state of affairs regarding crop protection products with regard to the successful court cases engineered by AUDACE

Nach dem gerichtlichen Erfolg von AUDACE ......... Informationen zur aktuellen Lage bei den Mitteln zur Pflanzenpflege.




L'Arrêt de la Cour d'Appel de Douai du 8 février 2000

un jugement fort motivé

AUDACE fait progresser la jurisprudence et


arrête définitivement les actions illégitimement menées

contre la distribution et les agriculteurs

fondées sur les dispositions de la

loi n° 525 du 2 novembre 1943


Texte de l'Arrêt 






2007 et après :

   Looking for the future :



trends_bouton.jpg (123666 bytes)amending directive 91/414/EEC: 


see the following pages :

included, AUDACE's comments and observations on the proposals for
Regulation [ 2006/0136 ( COD ) - COM ( 2006 ) 388 final ]and
Directive [ 2006/0132 ( COD) - COM ( 2006 ) 373 final ] 
relating to the marketing and sustainable use of Plant Protection Products (PPP)
(0,140 MB)

voir les pages suivantes :

inclus, les  Commentaires et observations d'AUDACE sur les propositions 

de règlement [ 2006/0136 ( COD ) - COM ( 2006 ) 388 final ] et
de directive [ 2006/0132 ( COD) - COM ( 2006 ) 373 final ]

concernant la mise sur le marché et l'utilisation durable des Produits PhytoPharmaceutiques ( PPP ) (0,26 MB)