The EU has once more opened an infringement procedure against Malta, this time over plant health rules. Which EU legislation is this infringement of?
The primary EU legislation is Regulation (EU) 2016/2031, also known as the EU Plant Health Law, which was fully applied in 2019. Its main goal is to prevent the introduction and spread of harmful plant pests by applying a proactive, preventive strategy, rather than just reacting to outbreaks.
It sets out legally binding targets at the EU and national levels to reduce by 50% the use and the risk of chemical pesticides and the use of more hazardous pesticides by 2030.
The regulation establishes rules for plant passports, phytosanitary certificates (necessary for the introduction into the EU territory of plants, plant products and other objects in passengers' personal luggage), and a list of pests requiring special attention, among other measures to protect crops, forests, and landscapes in the EU. This regulation should also deliver on the European Green Deal and the commitments of the EU Farm-to-Fork strategy.
It also aims to ensure safe trade, as well as to mitigate the impacts of climate change on the health of EU crops and forests.
On January 29, 2025, then, the Commission Directive (EU) 2025/145, aiming to align the rules for marketing fruit plant material and fruit plants for production with plant health rules, was promulgated.
The new Plant Health Regulation refers to the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), an intergovernmental treaty that aims to protect the world's plant resources from the spread and introduction of pests. The IPPC sets the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) and is the main global standard-setting organisation for plant health.
However, the EU plant health regime has been in place since 1977. EU institutions have been reviewed several times since then, initially in the form of directives.
While not directly part of EU plant health law, EU legislation on pesticides also has a crucial role to play in ensuring the health of plants and their environment. Since 2009, an important cornerstone of EU legislation on pesticide use has been Directive 2009/128/EC on the sustainable use of pesticides in the EU.
This directive, which EU countries, including Malta, transposed into their national laws, established a framework for EU action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides. It did so by setting minimum rules to reduce the risks to human health and the environment that are associated with chemical pesticide use. It also promoted the use of integrated pest management (IPM) as a crucial alternative to chemical pesticides. Furthermore, it sought to enhance the high level of protection achieved through the entire regulatory system for pesticides.
The European Commission's infringement decision was not only against Malta but also against Denmark, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Austria and Slovakia.
Basically, the allegation is that these countries have not fully transposed the Commission Directive (EU) 2025/145 of 29 January 2025 amending Implementing Directive 2014/98/EU as regards the Union-regulated non-quarantine pests Tobacco ringspot virus, Tomato ringspot virus, Pucciniastrum minimum (Schweinitz) Arthur and Fig mosaic agent and correcting that Implementing Directive as regards measures concerning Candidatus Phytoplasma prunorum Seemüller & Schneider, to ensure harmonisation in the area of plant health.
In simpler terms, all the EU member states concerned failed in the listing of pests of plants on fruit plant propagating material and fruit plants intended for fruit production. Member States had to transpose this Directive into national law by 31 July 2025.
So what happens now?
Malta, along with the other member states, will have two months to complete their transposition and notify their measures to the Commission. During that period, they may provide a reply and explain their position.
In the absence of a satisfactory response, the Commission may decide to issue a reasoned opinion. As a final step, the Commission can refer the case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which can impose penalties.
The infringement procedure, though, remains just a legal and technical measure that, at the end of the day, might deviate from the core importance of fully implementing and adhering to the EU's Plant Health Law.
We are here talking of a law that, above all, increases the prevention against the introduction of new pests via imports from third countries by establishing, from time to time, a list of high-risk plants the introduction of which into the EU territory will be provisionally prohibited until a full risk assessment has been carried out.
For these specific pests, Member States will have to adopt enhanced provisions: information campaigns to the public in case they are present in their territory, implementation of annual surveys, preparation of contingency plans, simulation exercises and action plans for eradication.
For these types of pests, there are three different quarantine measures: (i) union quarantine pests, when they are not present at all in EU territory; (ii) protected zone quarantine pests, when pests are present in most parts of the EU but absent in certain areas called "protected zones"; and (iii) regulated non-quarantine pests, when the latter are widely present in the EU but known to harm plant quality. Undoubtedly, the introduction of the new Plant Health Law coincides with a notable decrease in the variety of plant protection products available and registered for use among farmers, along with a reduction in the maximum residue levels of permitted pesticides.
Still, plant pathology has become a utilitarian science of vast possibilities.
Dr. Mark Said