1. Scope issues and referrals to the CG - background
1. Referrals to the CG under Article 27(2)
Conclusion at CG-22 (reservation by SE & DE):
Only disagreements on whether the product i) has not been notified or labelled as required by Article 27(1) or ii) it does not meet the requirements of Article 25 of the BPR.
Discrepancies on SPC & scope issues: not eligible
2. Request by DE for broader discussion (Article 35 referrals) at 72nd CA meeting (CA-May17-Doc.4.5).
Comments from NL only (supporting views agreed at CG-22)
Consultation of Legal Service of the Commission (Sept. 2017)

2. Scope issues and referrals to the CG - analysis
Articles 35(2) or 27(2) of the BPR only empower the CG to decide whether a biocidal product meets (or not) the conditions in Articles 19 or 25, as appropriate;
Articles 35(2) and 27(2) of the BPR presuppose that the concerned product for which the conditions in Articles 19 or 25 are questioned, as evaluated and/or authorised by another MS, is a biocidal product falling under the scope of the BPR;
The BPR does not empower the CG to decide whether a specific product or group of products is a biocidal product or a treated article or neither;
This competence as set in Article 3(3) is conferred to the Commission only.

3. Scope issues and referrals to the CG - conclusion
Where a CA of a MS has concerns on whether, pursuant to Article 2(2) of the BPR, a biocidal product might not fall under the scope of the BPR because it falls within the scope of another EU instrument (e.g. PPP Regulation), this matter cannot be submitted to the CG as a referral under Articles 35(2) or 27(2) of the BPR.
That CA may follow the agreed approach in document CA- March14-Doc.7.5 and where relevant, submit a request to the Commission to take an Article 3(3) decision.