In brief
- From 29 September 2026 the European Union officially refuses the import of two insecticides: carbosulfan, and fenthion in ultra-low-volume formulations at or above 640 g active ingredient/L. On behalf of the 27 Member States, the European Commission filled in the form by which every Party to the Rotterdam Convention states its position on the import of a chemical, and ticked „No consent to import”, as a final decision and not as an interim response. The response applies directly, with no Romanian law to take it over.
- Who is concerned. First of all the producers and traders outside the Union who might want to send these substances to a European buyer. In Romania the effect shows at the counter and at customs: for any chemical in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 649/2012, Order no. 1.214/3.729/2018 requires a certificate issued by the environment ministry before customs clearance, and the customs office endorses it and attaches it to the customs declaration. Farmers and pest control firms are not touched: both substances have long been banned in the Union, fenthion since 2004 and carbosulfan since 2007.
- The figures and the deadlines that matter. Carbosulfan, CAS number 55285-14-8, is listed as a pesticide, with no concentration threshold. Fenthion, CAS number 55-38-9, is listed as a severely hazardous pesticide formulation, but only above 640 g active ingredient per litre. For both of them the Union is answering for the first time. The decision guidance document left the Secretariat of the Convention on 22 October 2025, and the regulation gave the European Commission nine months in which to answer, that is until 22 July 2026. The decision was adopted on 8 September 2026, 48 days past the deadline, published on 9 September and enters into force on 29 September 2026. Two days later, on 1 October 2026, the two entries move into Part 3 of Annex I to the same regulation.
Published: Official Journal of the European Union, L series, 2026/1977 of 9 September 2026
In force from: 29 September 2026, the twentieth day following publication, because the text of the decision does not itself provide a date, under Article 297(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
The European Union has officially said no to imports of carbosulfan and of concentrated fenthion, and the response enters into force on 29 September 2026. Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2026/1977 has a single article, two lines long, and refers to an annex made up of two forms filled in with ticks. What those forms say changes nothing in the fields of Romania, because neither of the two substances is still allowed into any plant protection product sold in the Union. The basis of that prohibition is Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the European act that decides which active substances may go into agricultural pesticides and under which, also in September 2026, phosphine was approved until 2041, but only for fumigation in gas-tight chambers. What changes on 29 September is something else: the position of the Union becomes enforceable outside it.
The mechanism carries an awkward name, the prior informed consent procedure, abbreviated PIC after its English initials, but the idea behind it is simple. A country should not receive a hazardous chemical on its territory without knowing about it and without having said whether it wants it. The Rotterdam Convention, adopted on 10 September 1998 and acceded to by Romania through Law no. 91/2003, published in Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial), Part I, no. 199 of 27 March 2003, keeps a list of those products, Annex III. For every entry on the list, each Party fills in an import response form. The Union answers as a bloc, through the European Commission, and the 27 Member States are listed by name at the head of each form, Romania among them.
The two chemicals reached the list at the twelfth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention, held in Geneva from 28 April to 9 May 2025. The decision guidance document, that is the file on which each country’s response rests, was sent to the Parties on 22 October 2025, together with the request for a response. The European Commission answered for the Union through an act adopted in Brussels on 8 September 2026 and signed by Jessika Roswall, Member of the Commission, after consulting the committee set up by Article 133 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the chemicals committee known from the REACH regulation.
The substance of the decision sits in the annex, and the annex is a standard form of the Secretariat of the Convention, reproduced twice, once for each substance. In both forms, at Section 3, the box for „Final decision” is ticked, not the one for an interim response. At Section 4.1 the tick goes to „No consent to import”. Below it, to the question whether the import of the chemical from all sources is simultaneously prohibited, the answer is „Yes”, and to the question whether domestic production for domestic use is simultaneously prohibited, again „Yes”. Section 6 shows that the chemical is neither registered nor manufactured in the Union. The designated national authority signing for the Union is the European Commission itself, DG Environment, with the contact address ENV-PIC@ec.europa.eu, and the completed form goes to the Secretariat of the Convention, in Rome or in Geneva.
What it changes in practice
The first effect is the refusal itself and its legal form. A final response has no expiry date and does not have to be reconfirmed periodically, unlike an interim one, where the form asks whether a final decision is under active consideration and what further information would be needed. One way of changing it exists, in the third subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EU) No 649/2012: where the chemical becomes subject to additional or amended restrictions under Union law, the Commission adopts a revised import decision. Until then, the position remains the one of 8 September 2026.
The second effect concerns the circulation of information, and this is where the practical use of the act lies. The Commission communicates the response to the Secretariat of the Convention, which distributes it to the other Parties by circular. Then, through Article 13(5) of the same regulation, the designated national authority of each Member State is obliged to make the import decisions available to those concerned within its competence, and the European Chemicals Agency to publish them in its database. An exporter from any country can thus find out, without asking anyone, that the goods have nowhere to go.
The third effect is symmetrical and concerns exporters from the Union, including Romanian ones. Article 14(4) requires them to comply with the decisions in each import response no later than six months after the Secretariat first informed the Commission of them. In other words, the pace the Union imposes on its own operators as regards the responses of other countries is the same one it expects of others as regards its own response.
The fourth effect does not come from this decision, but it falls only two days after it and it changes the export regime. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/1278 of 9 June 2026, published in the Official Journal of the European Union, L series, 2026/1278 of 12 August 2026, applies from 1 October 2026 and adds both entries to Part 3 of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 649/2012, the list of chemicals subject to the PIC procedure. At the same time, carbosulfan is removed from Part 2, where it had sat until then. For an exporter the difference is real: for products in Part 2, Article 14(6), point (a), requires the explicit consent of the importing country, obtained through the designated national authority; for those in Part 3, point (b) accepts the latest circular of the Secretariat as well, where that circular shows that the importing Party has given consent. For fenthion the detail matters: only ultra-low-volume formulations at or above 640 g/L move into Part 3, while fenthion as a substance stays in Part 2.
The fifth effect shows up in Romania at the counter. Regulation (EU) No 649/2012 is implemented through Government Decision no. 770/2016, while Order no. 1.214/3.729/2018 of the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Public Finance, published in Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 107 of 12 February 2019, lays down how the control is carried out. The ministry issues a certificate for every importer or exporter dealing with chemicals from Annex I, valid for one chemical and for one or more countries of destination, at the latest until the end of the calendar year in which it was requested. The customs office allows clearance on the basis of the certificate, endorses it and attaches it to the customs declaration, and for several consignments it writes on the back the particulars of the declaration and the quantities. Penalties remain a matter for the Member States, because Article 28 of the regulation leaves the setting of them to the Member States.
What has changed compared with the previous situation
Until 28 September 2026 the Union had no response recorded at Rotterdam for these two chemicals, and the form says so plainly: at Section 2.1, in both cases, the tick says that this is a first-time import response. The reason lies in the procedure: neither entry figured in Annex III to the Convention, so the PIC procedure had never been triggered for them. The Conference of the Parties changed that in May 2025, and from then on the Union had a response to give.
Inside the Union, by contrast, nothing changes, because the prohibition is an old one. Fenthion was taken out by Commission Decision 2004/140/EC of 11 February 2004, which required the Member States to withdraw the authorisations of plant protection products containing fenthion by 11 August 2004, with a few uses extended until 30 June 2007 and with grace periods expiring at the latest on 31 December 2007. Carbosulfan was taken out by Commission Decision 2007/415/EC of 13 June 2007, with the authorisations withdrawn by 13 December 2007 and the grace period expiring at the latest on 13 December 2008. Between the first of those decisions and the import response, twenty-two years and almost seven months went by.
The export regime changes as well, from 1 October 2026, through the delegated regulation mentioned above. And here one thing is worth noticing that does not show up when reading the decision: for carbosulfan, the move from Part 2 to Part 3 of Annex I makes the export regime easier, because the exporter gains one more way of justifying himself. That is how the procedure works: once the chemical is under PIC, the official responses of the importing countries are public and can stand in place of consent obtained one case at a time.
Advantages and disadvantages
What it improves
- The position of the Union becomes verifiable from outside. The response goes into the circular of the Secretariat of the Convention and into the database of the European Chemicals Agency, so an exporter from any country can see for himself that the goods have nowhere to go.
- The response is final, not interim, so it does not expire and calls for no reconfirmation. It can be changed only by a revised import decision, if the restrictions under Union law change.
- The refusal is accompanied by „Yes” to the question whether the prohibition is the same from all sources, so no privileged country of origin can be invoked.
- The form does not stop at the tick: Section 4.4 also gives the legal basis of the refusal, and the remarks section reproduces the hazard classification, hazard statements and all. Anyone can check whether the response stands up.
- The identification is unambiguous exactly where it matters most: CAS numbers 55285-14-8 and 55-38-9 accompany each entry, and the concentration threshold is written in figures.
- For exporters from the Union, the move of carbosulfan into Part 3 of Annex I, from 1 October 2026, adds a simpler way of justifying an export, alongside explicit consent obtained case by case.
What remains a problem
- The nine-month deadline in Article 13(1) was overrun by 48 days, and the regulation provides no consequence for the overrun.
- The box that ought to support the response describes a narrower prohibition than the response given. Section 4.4 speaks of placing on the market and use in plant protection products and biocidal products, yet the form also ticks „Yes” to the question about prohibiting domestic production.
- The Romanian version of the act names the same category of the Convention in three different ways, and the entry concerning fenthion in two, even though the English version uses a single wording throughout.
- The title of the Romanian version contains a square bracket that opens before the description of the fenthion formulations and is never closed.
- In the case of fenthion the refusal covers only formulations at or above 640 g/L, even though the prohibition inside the Union covers the whole substance. A hasty reader may think the rest can be imported.
- The published form is undated and unsigned: the „Date” line and the one for the signature of the designated national authority are left blank, so the Official Journal of the European Union does not tell us when the response actually left for the Secretariat.
Practical advice
- If you import or export chemicals from Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 649/2012, ask the environment ministry for the certificate before you lodge the customs declaration. Under Order no. 1.214/3.729/2018, the certificate is valid for one chemical, for one or more countries of destination, and it cannot run past the end of the calendar year in which you asked for it.
- Mark 1 October 2026 in your diary if you export carbosulfan. Until 30 September 2026 the substance is in Part 2 of Annex I, where export calls for the explicit consent of the importing country. From 1 October it moves into Part 3, where Article 14(6), point (b), also accepts the latest circular of the Secretariat, where that circular shows that the importing Party has given consent.
- With fenthion, read the concentration and not only the name. Only ultra-low-volume formulations at or above 640 g active ingredient per litre go into Part 3 of Annex I. Fenthion as a substance stays in Part 2, so for it explicit consent is still needed.
- Do not confuse the refusal of import with a new prohibition in Romania. Plant protection products with these substances have not been allowed for sale and use since 2004 and 2007 respectively, and the 2026 decision adds nothing on the domestic market.
- If you export to third countries, follow the responses of all the Parties, not only the one of the Union. Article 14(4) leaves you six months from the date on which the Secretariat first informed the Commission in which to comply with every new import response.
- The text of the response is in the database of the European Chemicals Agency, and at national level the designated authority is obliged to make it available to you, under Article 13(5). Do not rely on press summaries when deciding on a shipment.
- If you need a contact point at Union level, it is written in the form itself: the European Commission, DG Environment, e-mail address ENV-PIC@ec.europa.eu.
Frequently asked questions
From when does the refusal apply?
Is a Romanian law needed for the refusal to apply in Romania?
Can I still import fenthion at a concentration lower than 640 g per litre?
What does „final decision” mean as against „interim response”?
What changes on 1 October 2026?
How dangerous are the two substances, by the very text of the act?
Which is the designated national authority that answered for the Union?
Where does the completed form end up?
Editorial analysis
The act itself is short and correctly built: one article, two forms, a clear legal basis. Its problem is not what it says but when it says it. The second subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Regulation (EU) No 649/2012 requires the Commission to communicate the decision to the Secretariat „as soon as possible, and no later than nine months after the date of dispatch” of the guidance document. The document left on 22 October 2025, so the nine months ended on 22 July 2026. The act was adopted on 8 September 2026, that is 321 days after dispatch, against the 273 the regulation allows. The overrun is 48 days, and the communication to the Secretariat comes after adoption in any case, so the real delay is larger. The regulation provides no consequence. The contrast is clearest alongside Article 14(4), which gives exporters from the Union six months, around 182 days, in which to comply with the import response of another country. For its own response the administration took almost twice the time it imposes on operators for complying with somebody else’s.
The second observation comes from comparing two acts of the same institution, not from reading one of them. The export consequence of the same decision of the Conference of the Parties was adopted by the Commission on 9 June 2026, through Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/1278, published on 12 August 2026 and applicable from 1 October 2026. In other words, the part that concerns European exporters was settled 91 days before the import response, which was already overdue. The order is not neutral: the international obligation that had fallen due waited, while the internal rule went ahead. What is more, the decision of 8 September nowhere mentions the delegated regulation adopted by the same Commission on the same factual basis, even though the two produce effects two days apart and concern exactly the same two entries.
The third observation concerns the fit between the response given and the basis invoked for it. Article 13(4) requires the Commission to provide, together with the decision, a description of the legislative or administrative measure on which it is based, and that description sits at Section 4.4 of each form. It says there that in the Union it is prohibited to place on the market or use plant protection products and biocidal products containing the substance, because the substance is not approved under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and Regulation (EU) No 528/2012. One line higher, however, the form answers „Yes” to the question whether domestic production of the chemical for domestic use is simultaneously prohibited. Manufacturing is neither placing on the market nor use, and Regulation (EU) No 649/2012 is built precisely on the premise that a chemical banned in the Union may still be manufactured here and exported. That is why carbosulfan also figures in Part 1 of Annex I, the list of products subject to export notification. The response is probably correct in fact, since no internal use is permitted any longer, but the box meant to support it does not reach that far.
Lastly, the Romanian version of the act has a consistency problem that the English version does not. The category into which fenthion falls appears in three different wordings in the same document: „preparat pesticid deosebit de periculos” in recital (4), „Preparat pesticid cu risc deosebit de mare” in the list of categories in the first form, and „Preparat pesticid cu risc deosebit” in the second, exactly where the tick produces the effect. In English all three are „severely hazardous pesticide formulation”. In the same way, the entry concerning fenthion is written „preparate cu volum foarte mic, având un conținut de substanță activă mai mare sau egal cu 640 g/l” in the recital and „preparate cu un volum ultraredus, la un nivel echivalent cu sau de peste 640 g de ingredient activ/l” in the title, in the sole article and in the annex, where the English version keeps one wording in all four places. The meaning is the same, so there is no risk of two different legal conclusions, but from 1 October 2026 Part 3 of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 649/2012 will use, for the same entry, the wording from the sole article and, for the category, the wording from the recital, so the Romanian text will contradict itself in both directions. In the same place, the title of the Romanian version opens a square bracket before the description of the formulations and never closes it, which leaves the reference to Regulation (EU) No 649/2012 looking like part of the product description rather than the legal basis of the decision. It is worth noticing, too, that the act does not explain why carbosulfan is listed with no concentration threshold while fenthion is listed only above 640 g/L, even though, on the classification reproduced in the act itself, carbosulfan is the more dangerous of the two by inhalation, fatal as against merely toxic.
What should be changed
- A corrigendum to the Romanian version, with a single name for the category and one for the entry concerning fenthion. The natural choice is the wording from Regulation (EU) No 649/2012, since that is where the two entries end up anyway on 1 October 2026. The square bracket in the title ought to be closed in the same corrigendum.
- The description at Section 4.4 should cover everything the form ticks. If the response states that domestic production for domestic use is prohibited, the basis for that prohibition has to be written in the box, so that each reader does not have to work it out alone. Otherwise it remains a statement nobody can check against the act.
- The nine-month deadline should carry a consequence. A deadline overrun by 48 days with no follow-up is not a deadline but an intention, and the difference shows by comparison with the six months imposed on exporters, which apply without excuses.
- The published form should bear the date on which it was sent to the Secretariat. The lines for the date and for the signature are empty in the Official Journal of the European Union, so the moment from which the international circulation of the response starts to run cannot be established from the official text.
- The decision should refer to the delegated regulation that implements its export consequence. Two acts of the same institution, on the same factual basis, with effects two days apart, ought to cite each other, at least in a recital.
- The act should say expressly whether the refusal covers any import of the substance or only import for the use in the category under which it was listed. With fenthion, where the listing is limited to a concentration, the difference decides whether a consignment falls outside the refusal or not.
Original text of the legal act
The text below is reproduced in Romanian, the official form of publication.
The full text, as published in the Official Gazette of Romania
Official Journal of the European Union, L series, 2026/1977 of 9 September 2026 10 pages PDF, 773 KB
Open the official PDFDownload the PDF
The viewer is not shown on small screens. Use the buttons above to open or download the file.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific situations, consult a licensed attorney or tax advisor.