The Bottom Line
- Product Instructions Are Legally Binding: Usage instructions for regulated substances, such as plant protection products, are not mere guidelines. A Dutch court confirmed that deviating from them constitutes an economic offense under EU and national law, regardless of intent.
- “Good Intentions” Are Not a Defense: The company’s goal was to find an effective pest control method with minimal impact. However, knowingly violating the product’s application method was enough to establish intent and secure a conviction.
- Individual and Corporate Liability: This case highlights that both the company and the employees carrying out the non-compliant actions can face prosecution. While the employee here received no penalty, the conviction underscores the personal risk for operational staff.
The Details
The case centered on a major Dutch orchid grower combating a “pot worm” infestation. The company used a permitted plant protection agent, Vydate 10G, to solve the problem. However, the legally mandated method of application—mixing the agent into the potting soil before planting—was not followed. Instead, for two years, an employee mixed the Vydate granules with bulgur wheat and scattered this mixture over the orchids after they had been potted. This “off-label” use was the subject of an investigation and subsequent prosecution.
The District Court of Amsterdam found the employee guilty of co-perpetrating a violation of EU Regulation 1107/2009, which governs the use of plant protection products. The defense argued there was no intent to break the law, but the court dismissed this claim. The employee, who was the company’s specialist in this area, knew the application method was contrary to the official usage instructions. The court ruled that this knowledge was sufficient to prove intent (opzet). It also rejected the claim that the practice had stopped long before the investigation, citing physical evidence of recent use found during an on-site inspection.
Despite finding the defendant guilty, the court chose not to impose any punishment, applying a provision known as a “judicial pardon” (Article 9a of the Dutch Criminal Code). The court’s reasoning was layered. It recognized that the employee was acting as an executor of the company’s policy, not as the primary decision-maker. Furthermore, the company and its directors are being prosecuted separately, ensuring corporate accountability is addressed. The court also considered the defendant’s retirement and the fact that the company’s motive—to find an effective, low-impact solution—was not malicious. In light of these specific circumstances, the court concluded that imposing a penalty would serve no reasonable purpose.
Source
Rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court of Amsterdam)
