CELEX: 62010CJ0042
Veterinary and zootechnical sector
Regulation (EC) No 998/2003
Animal health conditions applicable to non-commercial movement of pet animals
Decision 2003/803/EC
Model passport for the intra-Community movements of dogs, cats and ferrets

These references for a preliminary ruling concern the interpretation of Articles 3(b), 4(2), 5 and the second paragraph of
Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the animal health
requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC (OJ 2003 L
146, p. 1), of Commission Decision 2003/803/EC of 26 November 2003 establishing a model passport for the intra-Community movements
of dogs, cats and ferrets (OJ 2003 L 312, p. 1) and of Article 1 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of
rules on Information Society services (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37), as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 20 July 1998 (OJ 1998 L 217, p. 18; ‘Directive 98/34’).
The references have been made in the course of proceedings between, firstly, the Vlaamse Dierenartsenvereniging VZW (‘the
VDV’) and Mr Janssens (Cases C‑42/10 and C-45/10) and the Belgische Staat, and secondly, the VDV and the Belgische Staat (Case
C-57/10), seeking annulment of the Royal Decree of 21 September 2004 amending the Royal Decree of 10 February 1967 regulating
the veterinary control of rabies (
Moniteur belge
, 24 September 2004, p. 69208; ‘the Decree of 21 September 2004’) (Case C-42/10), of the Royal Decree of 28 May 2004 on the
identification and registration of dogs (
Moniteur belge
, 7 June 2004, p. 43185; ‘the Decree of 28 May 2004’) (Case C-45/10) and of the Royal Decree of 5 May 2004 on the model and
methods of distribution of passports for the intra‑Community movement of cats and ferrets (
Moniteur belge
, 24 May 2004, p. 40130; ‘the Decree of 5 May 2004’) (Case C-57/10).
By order of the President of the Court of 2 March 2010, Cases C‑42/10, C‑45/10 and C‑57/10 were joined for the purposes of
the written and oral procedure and the judgment, on account of the connection between them, in accordance with Article 43
of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.

Legal context

European Union legislation
Regulation No 998/2003
Article 3 of Regulation No 998/2003 provides:
‘For the purposes of this Regulation:
…
(b)      “passport” means any document enabling the pet animal to be clearly identified and including the points that enable its status
with regard to this Regulation to be checked, which is to be drawn up in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 17;
…’.
Article 4(2) of that regulation is worded in the following terms:
‘Whatever form the animal identification system takes, provision shall also be made for the indication of details identifying
the name and address of the animal’s owner.’
Article 5 of that regulation reads as follows:
‘When being moved, pet animals of the species listed in parts A and B of Annex I must, without prejudice to the requirements
laid down in Article 6:
(a)      be identified in accordance with Article 4, and
(b)      be accompanied by a passport issued by a veterinarian authorised by the competent authority certifying valid anti-rabies vaccination,
or revaccination if applicable, in accordance with the recommendations of the manufacturing laboratory, carried out on the
animal in question with an inactivated vaccine of at least one antigenic unit per dose (WHO standard).
2.      Member States may authorise the movement of animals listed in parts A and B of Annex I which are under three months old and
unvaccinated, if they are accompanied by a passport and have stayed in the place in which they were born since birth without
contact with wild animals likely to have been exposed to the infection or are accompanied by their mothers on whom they are
still dependent.’
The second paragraph of Article 17 of Regulation No 998/2003 states:
‘The model passports which must accompany animals of the species listed in parts A and B of Annex I which are being moved
shall be drawn up in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 24(2).’
Annex I, parts A and B, to that regulation refers to dogs, cats and ferrets.
Decision 2003/803
Pursuant to Article 1 thereof, Decision 2003/803 establishes the model passport for the movement of dogs, cats and ferrets
between Member States.
By a reference to Article 2 of that decision, Annex I thereto requires the cover and the first to third pages of that model
passport to be in the following format:
Article 3 of Decision 2003/803 provides that the model passport must comply with the additional requirements set out in Annex
II thereto.
In that regard, Annex II, A, point 1 states:
‘The format of the model passport shall be uniform.’
Annex II, B, point 2(c) reads as follows:
‘The number of the model passport, comprising the ISO code of the Member State of issue followed by a unique number, shall
be printed on the cover of the model passport.’
Annex II, C, point 4 states that the size and the shape of the boxes of the model passport set out in Annex I are indicative
and not binding.
Directive 98/34
Article 1 of Directive 98/34 provides:
‘For the purposes of this Directive, the following meanings shall apply:
(1)      “product”, any industrially manufactured product and any agricultural product, including fish products;
(2)      “service”, any Information Society service, that is to say, any service normally provided for remuneration, at a distance,
by electronic means and at the individual request of a recipient of services.
…
(3)      “technical specification”, a specification contained in a document which lays down the characteristics required of a product
such as levels of quality, performance, safety or dimensions, including the requirements applicable to the product as regards
the name under which the product is sold, terminology, symbols, testing and test methods, packaging, marking or labelling
and conformity assessment procedures.
…
(4)      “other requirements”, a requirement, other than a technical specification, imposed on a product for the purpose of protecting,
in particular, consumers or the environment, and which affects its life cycle after it has been placed on the market, such
as conditions of use, recycling, reuse or disposal, where such conditions can significantly influence the composition or nature
of the product or its marketing;
…
(11)      “technical regulation”, technical specifications and other requirements or rules on services, including the relevant administrative
provisions, the observance of which is compulsory,
de jure
or
de facto
, in the case of marketing, provision of a service, establishment of a service operator or use in a Member State or a major
part thereof, as well as laws, regulations or administrative provisions of Member States, except those provided for in Article
10, prohibiting the manufacture, importation, marketing or use of a product or prohibiting the provision or use of a service,
or establishment as a service provider.
…’
Article 8 of Directive 98/34 states:
‘1.      Subject to Article 10, Member States shall immediately communicate to the Commission any draft technical regulation, except
where it merely transposes the full text of an international or European standard, in which case information regarding the
relevant standard shall suffice; they shall also let the Commission have a statement of the grounds which make the enactment
of such a technical regulation necessary, where these have not already been made clear in the draft.
Where appropriate, and unless it has already been sent with a prior communication, Member States shall simultaneously communicate
the text of the basic legislative or regulatory provisions principally and directly concerned, should knowledge of such text
be necessary to assess the implications of the draft technical regulation.
Member States shall communicate the draft again under the above conditions if they make changes to the draft that have the
effect of significantly altering its scope, shortening the timetable originally envisaged for implementation, adding specifications
or requirements, or making the latter more restrictive.
…
The Commission shall immediately notify the other Member States of the draft and all documents which have been forwarded to
it; it may also refer this draft, for an opinion, to the Committee referred to in Article 5 and, where appropriate, to the
committee responsible for the field in question.
…
3.      Member States shall communicate the definitive text of a technical regulation to the Commission without delay.
…’

National legislation
Article 3(2) of the Decree of 5 May 2004 provides:
‘All passports shall bear a unique number. That number shall consist of 13 characters, namely, the ISO code for Belgium, “BE”,
followed by the identification number of the distributor consisting of two digits and a serial number consisting of nine digits.’
The second subparagraph of Article 2(2) of the Decree of 28 May 2004 states:
‘Proof of identification and registration of dogs identified and registered after the entry into force of this Decree shall
be provided by the passport, the model for which is laid down in Annex II to this Decree, supplied with the definitive certificate
of identification and registration referred to in Article 19. The model definitive certificate of identification and registration
is laid down in Annex III to this Decree.’
By a reference from Article 2 thereof to Annex II of that Decree, the format of the model passport of 32 pages for pet animals
is established. The second and third pages thereof are in the following format:
Article 20 of the Decree of 28 May 2004 reads as follows:
‘The definitive certificate of identification and registration consists of two self‑adhesive stickers which are affixed to
pages 2 and 3 of the passport.’
Article 21 of that Decree provides:
‘Following receipt of the yellow copy of the temporary certificate of identification, the holder of the central register shall
register the dog’s details and those of its owner in the central register and shall send the owner a definitive certificate
of identification and registration and an insert entitled “Change of owner/Amendment of details/Death”, the model of which
is laid down in Annex IV to this Decree. Immediately upon receipt, the owner shall affix the definitive certificate of identification
and registration in the passport.’
Article 22 of that Decree states:
‘If ownership of a dog is transferred, the original owner shall complete the insert “Change of owner/Amendment of details/Death”
and shall send it within eight days to the holder of the central register. The passport shall immediately be passed to the
new owner. The holder of the central register shall send proof of the change to the new owner, together with an insert “Change
of owner/Amendments of details/Death”. Immediately upon receipt, the new owner shall affix the new definitive certificate
of identification and registration in the passport.’
Under Article 23 of that Decree:
‘In the situations set out in Article 6 or 7, the identifying person shall send, as soon as possible and in any event within
eight days, the insert “Change of owner/Amendment of details/Death”, stating the new identification mark, to the holder of
the central register. As proof of registration under that new identification mark, the holder shall send to the owner a new
definitive certificate of identification and registration, together with an insert “Change of owner/Amendment of details/Death”.’
Article 1 of the Decree of 21 September 2004 amends Article 14 of the Royal Decree of 10 February 1967 regulating the veterinary
control of rabies (
Moniteur belge
, 25 February 1967, p. 1966; ‘the Decree of 10 February 1967’), the amended wording of which is as follows:
‘Paragraph 1. The authorised veterinarian who has administered any vaccination shall issue a certificate in the format of the model annexed
to the present Decree.
Paragraph 2. For a dog, cat or ferret bearing a tattoo or readable microchip or which is identified at the time of vaccination, the authorised
veterinarian shall issue a passport which, as appropriate, has been distributed by an authorised legal entity pursuant to
the provisions of [the Decree of 5 May 2004] or by the holder of the central register for the identification of dogs, designated
pursuant to Article 27 of [the Decree of 28 May 2004]. After identification or after verification of the identification, the
authorised veterinarian shall state in the abovementioned passport which vaccination he has administered.
If the dog, cat or ferret already has a passport as referred to in the first subparagraph, the authorised veterinarian who
has administered the vaccination shall, after checking the identification data, add to that passport the necessary information
concerning the vaccination administered.
Paragraph 3. The owners and keepers of animals which must be vaccinated shall be required to present, as appropriate, the vaccination certificate
or the passport referred to above upon request of one of the authorities referred to in Article 27.’

The actions in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

Case C‑42/10
Brought on 5 November 2004 by the VDV and Mr Janssens, the action in the main proceedings in Case C-42/10 seeks annulment
of the Decree of 21 September 2004 in so far as it requires, in Article 14 of the Decree of 10 February 1967 as amended, vaccination
against rabies to be entered in a pet passport meeting the conditions laid down in the Decree of 5 May 2004 or those laid
down in the Decree of 28 May 2004.
In that regard, the applicants in the main proceedings submit that the Decree of 21 September 2004 infringes the principles
of free movement of persons, goods and services and the principle of free competition by creating a monopolistic position
for the Belgische Vereniging voor Identificatie en Registratie van Honden (‘the BVIRH’), and also infringes Regulation No
998/2003 and Decision 2003/803.
On that point, the applicants argue that the Decree of 21 September 2004 prevents the entry of vaccinations in a foreign pet
passport or in the pet passport distributed by the VDV. They also submit that the reference to the Decrees of 5 and 28 May
2004 should not have been made, since the latter contain requirements additional to those set out in the pet passport, as
defined by Regulation No 998/2003. Those Decrees link to that passport a duty to register and the notion of traceability.
The passport referred to in that regulation has, however, a purely health-related purpose. Moreover, such a supplementary
purpose was never part of the intentions of the European Union legislature since the identification of the animal is necessary
only for the purposes of linking it with a health certificate. Furthermore, the affixing of stickers by third parties to a
health document, as provided for in the Decree of 28 May 2004, is not permitted. By providing that passports issued in Belgium
must bear a unique number of 13 digits, the Decree of 5 May 2004 introduces an obligation not required at European Union level.
The defendant in the main proceedings contends that the passport referred to in Regulation No 998/2003 is, above all, an identification
document and that it is perfectly logical that it should have taken measures to ensure a consistent and uniform policy making
obligatory a single document which, in Belgium, acts as an identification and registration document and, for intra-Community
movements, as a health and identification document. It submits, with regard to the alleged monopolistic position held by the
BVIRH, that that association is not the only one recognised by the State.
It was in those circumstances that the Raad van State (Council of State) (Belgium) decided to stay the proceedings and refer
the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
‘1.      Do Articles 3(b), 4(2), 5 and the second paragraph of Article 17 of [Regulation No 998/2003] and the articles of and annexes
to [Decision 2003/803] preclude national legislation regulating passports for cats and ferrets from … referring to the model
and the additional requirements laid down in [Decision 2003/803], yet … also prescribing that every passport must bear a unique
number consisting of 13 characters, namely, “BE”, being the ISO code for Belgium, followed by the identification number of
the distributor consisting of two digits and a serial number consisting of nine digits?
2.      Do Articles 3(b), 4(2), 5 and the second paragraph of Article 17 of [Regulation No 998/2003] and the articles of and annexes
to [Decision 2003/803] preclude national legislation from also using the model of the European pet passport as proof of both
the identification and the registration of dogs and, in that connection, making provision for third parties to insert changes
with regard to the identification of the owner and the animal in Parts I to III of a European pet passport attested by an
authorised veterinarian by means of identification stickers which are superimposed on the previous identification details?’

Case C-45/10
Brought on 30 July 2004 by the VDV and Mr Janssens, the action in the main proceedings in Case C‑45/10 seeks annulment of
the Decree of 28 May 2004.
To that end, the applicants in the main proceedings argue, firstly, that that Decree creates a monopolistic situation in favour
of the BVIRH as regards the distribution of passports for dogs, which has the consequence of preventing veterinarians from
having their pet passports printed in a Member State other than the Kingdom of Belgium. That Decree is also a source of fraud
and gives rise to discrimination by linking the identification of dogs contained in the passports at issue in the main proceedings
to an obligation to register and a notion of traceability, when that obligation does not exist in respect of cats or ferrets,
and despite the fact that the European Union legislation treats those animal species identically. In addition, the direct
effect of that legislation requires the VDV to take all necessary steps to ensure that its members are able to comply with
that legislation and also, as a consequence, renders the Decree of 28 May 2004 inapplicable. Next, those applicants submit
that the use of self-adhesive stickers runs counter to the objective pursued by Decision 2003/803, which is to enable ease
of monitoring by the competent authorities. Finally, they argue that the principle of subsidiarity cannot be relied on by
the Member State concerned.
Furthermore, the applicants in the main proceedings submit that the provisions of the Decree of 28 May 2004, which use the
model of the pet passport laid down in Decision 2003/803 as proof of the identification and registration of dogs, which provide
for the affixing of self-adhesive stickers in the passport for the purposes of identifying the owner and the animal and which
depart from that model passport as regards the space provided for information concerning a new owner, constitute technical
regulations within the meaning of Directive 98/34 which, under Article 8 of thereof, should have been communicated to the
European Commission prior to their adoption. In that regard, those applicants submit that dogs, together with their passport,
must be regarded as goods.
In a judgment of 9 January 2006 (No 153 336), dismissing the application for the suspension of the enforcement of the contested
Decree, the national court held that the mere fact that a particular matter is regulated by directly binding provisions at
the European Union level does not prevent the competent national authority, with a view to promoting the general domestic
interest, from enacting a supplementary legislative measure of its own in respect of aspects not contained in the European
Union legislative measure or when that measure does not preclude a supplementary domestic legislative measure. The defendant
in the main proceedings could, therefore, in the view of that court, enact a domestic legislative measure provided that the
latter did not prevent the European Union legislation from being wholly effective. Since neither Regulation No 998/2003 nor
Decision 2003/803 contained any provision relating to the production and distribution to veterinarians of passports for dogs,
the Decree of 28 May 2004 does not depart from the framework created by that decision. Similarly, as regards the affixing
of self-adhesive stickers in the passports, that court observed that neither Regulation No 998/2003 nor Decision 2003/803
prohibits the recording of individualised data in the passport by means of self-adhesive stickers provided that in so doing
there is no deviation from the model passport laid down in Decision 2003/803.
Since the applicants in the main proceedings maintained their arguments as to the incompatibility of the Decree of 28 May
2004 with the European Union legislation, the Raad van State decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions
to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
‘1.      Do Articles 3(b), 4(2), 5 and the second paragraph of Article 17 of [Regulation No 998/2003] and the articles of and annexes
to [Decision 2003/803] preclude a national legislative measure which also uses the model of the European pet passport as proof
of the identification and registration of dogs and in so doing makes provision for third parties to make changes regarding
the identification of the owner and the animal in Parts I to III of a European pet passport attested by an authorised veterinarian
by means of identification stickers which are superimposed on the previous identification details?
2.      Are national provisions which also use the model of the European pet passport, as contained in [Decision 2003/803], as proof
of the identification and registration of dogs and in so doing make provision for third parties to make changes regarding
the identification of the owner and the animal in Parts I to III of such a passport by means of identification stickers, technical
regulations within the meaning of Article 1 of [Directive 98/34], which under Article 8 of that directive must be communicated
to the European Commission before they are enacted?’

Case C-57/10
Brought on 7 June 2004 by the VDV, the action in the main proceedings in Case C‑57/10 seeks annulment of the Decree of 5 May
2004.
In that regard, the applicant in the main proceedings submits that that Decree infringes Articles 3(g) EC, 30 EC, 81 EC and
82 EC, the principles of free movement of goods, services, persons and capital, Regulation No 998/2003, Decision 2003/803
and Directive 98/34.
By setting a more detailed method for determining the unique number of the pet passport than that provided for by the European
Union legislation, the Decree of 5 May 2004, firstly, fails to have regard to the direct effect of European Union regulations
and decisions laid down in Article 249 EC and, secondly, constitutes a technical standard which, in disregard of Directive
98/34, has not been communicated to the Commission.
The defendant in the main proceedings submits that, in accordance with Regulation No 998/2003, the national authorities have
some discretion as regards determination of that unique number which authorises them to adopt supplementary decisions with
a view to establishing an appropriate procedure for identification. It also takes the view that the Decree of 5 May 2004 does
not fall within the scope of Directive 98/34.
In a judgment of 9 January 2006 (No 136 163), dismissing the application for suspension of the enforcement of that Decree,
the national court held that the mere fact that a particular matter is regulated by directly binding provisions at the European
Union level does not prevent the competent national authority, with a view to promoting the general domestic interest, from
enacting supplementary legislative measures of its own in respect of aspects which are not contained in the European Union
legislative measure or when that measure does not preclude a supplementary domestic legislative measure. The defendant in
the main proceedings was able therefore, in the view of that court, to enact a domestic legislative measure provided that
the latter did not prevent the European Union legislation from being wholly effective. Since neither Regulation No 998/2003
nor Decision 2003/803 contained any provision relating to the production and distribution to veterinarians of passports for
cats and ferrets, the Decree of 28 May 2004 does not depart from the framework created by that decision.
Since the applicant in the main proceedings maintained its arguments as to the incompatibility of the Decree of 5 May 2004
with the European Union legislation, the Raad van State decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions
to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
‘1.      Do Articles 3(b), 4(2), 5 and the second paragraph of Article 17 of [Regulation No 998/2003] and the articles of and annexes
to [Decision 2003/803] preclude national legislation regulating passports for cats and ferrets from referring to the model
and the additional requirements laid down in [Decision 2003/803], yet also prescribing that every passport must bear a unique
number consisting of 13 characters, namely, “BE”, being the ISO code for Belgium, followed by the identification number of
the distributor consisting of two digits and a serial number consisting of nine digits?
2.      Is national legislation which in regard to the passport for cats and ferrets refers to the model and the additional requirements
laid down in [Decision 2003/803], yet in addition prescribes that every passport must bear a unique number consisting of 13
characters, namely, “BE”, the ISO code for Belgium, followed by the identification number of the distributor consisting of
two digits and a serial number consisting of nine digits, a technical regulation within the meaning of Article 1 of [Directive
98/34] which, under Article 8 of that Directive, must be communicated to the … Commission before its enactment?’

Consideration of the questions referred

Preliminary observations
In its observations, the VDV, the applicant in the three sets of main proceedings, sets out two additional questions on which,
because of their importance, it also wishes the Court to rule.
In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, in the context of the cooperation between the Court and the national courts
provided for by Article 267 TFEU, it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought, and which
must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances
of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions
which it submits to the Court (see, to that effect, Case C‑138/08
Hochtief and Linde-Kca-Dresden
[2009] ECR I‑9889, paragraph 20 and the case-law cited).
The right to determine the questions to be put to the Court thus devolves upon the national court alone and the parties may
not change their tenor (
Hochtief and Linde-Kca-Dresden
, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited).
In addition, to alter the substance of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling, or to answer the additional questions
mentioned by the applicants in the main proceedings in their observations, would be incompatible with the Court’s function
under Article 267 TFEU and with its duty to ensure that the governments of the Member States and the parties concerned are
given the opportunity to submit observations under Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, bearing in mind that
under that provision only the order of the national court is notified to the interested parties (see, to that effect,
Hochtief and Linde-Kca-Dresden
, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited).
It follows that the Court cannot undertake an analysis of the additional questions raised by the VDV.

The first questions in Cases C‑42/10 and C‑57/10
In its first questions in Cases C‑42/10 and C‑57/10, the national court asks, in essence, whether Articles 3(b), 4(2), 5 and
the second paragraph of Article 17 of Regulation No 998/2003 and the articles of and annexes to Decision 2003/803 must be
interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down a numbering
system for pet passports comprising a unique number consisting of the two-letter ISO code for the Kingdom of Belgium (BE)
followed by the identification number of the authorised distributor consisting of two digits and a serial number consisting
of nine digits.
In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, by virtue of the very nature of regulations and of their function in the system
of sources of European Union law, the provisions of regulations generally have immediate effect in the national legal systems
without it being necessary for the national authorities to adopt measures of application or without it being necessary for
the European Union legislature to adopt supplementary legislation (Case C‑367/09
SGS Belgium and Others
[2010] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited).
Some of the provisions of a regulation, even if supplemented by an implementing decision, may, however, necessitate, for their
implementation, the adoption of national measures of application (see, by analogy, Case C-403/98
Monte Arcosu
[2001] ECR I-103, paragraph 26).
That is manifestly the case of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation No 998/2003, read in conjunction with Annex II, B, point 2(c)
to Decision 2003/803.
Apart from the obligation to state the ISO code of the Member State of issue at the head of the series of digits comprising
the unique number to be entered on the pet passport, those provisions of Regulation No 998/2003 and of Decision 2003/803 do
not lay down any specific method for determining that number. They therefore place on the Member States the obligation of
defining the method for determining that number.
It must be held that the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings meets the requirements concerning the numbering
of the passports laid down in Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation No 998/2003, read in conjunction with Annex II, B, point 2(c)
to Decision 2003/803. That national legislation provides, firstly, that each passport is to have a unique number and, secondly,
that the first two characters of that number are to consist of the two-letter ISO code for the Kingdom of Belgium (BE). The
national legislation at issue, by implementing the provisions of European Union law referred to above and by specifying, in
addition, the numbering system for the other characters comprising the passport number, ensures that those provisions have
their full effect.
It follows from the foregoing that the answer to the first questions in Cases C‑42/10 and C‑57/10 is that Articles 3(b), 4(2),
5 and the second paragraph of Article 17 of Regulation No 998/2003 and the articles of and annexes to Decision 2003/803 must
be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation which lays down a numbering system for pet passports
comprising a unique number consisting of the two-letter ISO code for the Member State concerned followed by the identification
number of the authorised distributor consisting of two digits and a serial number consisting of nine digits.

The second question in Case C‑42/10 and the first question in Case C‑45/10
By its second question in Case C‑42/10 and its first question in Case C‑45/10, the national court asks, in essence, whether
Articles 3(b), 4(2), 5 and the second paragraph of Article 17 of Regulation No 998/2003 and the articles of and annexes to
Decision 2003/803 preclude legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, firstly, a pet passport
is used not only as a travel document pursuant to the European Union legislation but also as proof of identification and registration of
dogs at a national level and, secondly, the format of the identifying details of the owner and the animal entered therein
differ from that provided for in Decision 2003/803 and the amendment thereof is carried out by affixing the new details over
the old using self-adhesive stickers.
Firstly, with regard to the use of a pet passport as proof of identification and registration of dogs at the national level,
it is appropriate to point out that what is at issue is the use of that passport for parallel purposes different from those
underlying the European Union legislation, that is to say, the harmonisation of animal health requirements applicable to the
non-commercial intra-Community movement of pet animals.
In that regard, it must be noted that neither the letter nor the spirit of Regulation No 998/2003 and Decision 2003/803 permits
the conclusion that a pet passport has the unique and exclusive function of meeting the objectives pursued by the European
Union legislation or that, therefore, use of that passport, at national level, for other purposes is prohibited. On the contrary,
it is apparent from recitals (3) and (4) in the preamble to Decision 2003/803 and from the model passport annexed to that
decision that it includes pages enabling the inscription of data unconnected to the European Union legislation. Thus, it provides
for certifications of vaccinations not required under Regulation No 998/2003 and sections entitled ‘clinical examination’
and ‘legalisation’ so that the pet passports can also be used for the movement of animals outside the European Union.
Accordingly, use of that passport for purposes other than those referred to in the European Union legislation cannot, in principle,
be prohibited.
Nevertheless, it is important that that use does not adversely affect either the effective application of Regulation No 998/2003
or Decision 2003/803 or the objectives which they pursue. It is neither shown nor even alleged by the parties to the main
proceedings or by the interested parties referred to in Article 23 of the Statute of the Court who have submitted observations
that use of the passport for purposes of identification and registration of dogs at a national level would have such an effect.
Secondly, as regards entry of the identifying details of the owner and the animal, which are amended by affixing the new details
over the old using self-adhesive stickers, it must be held that legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings
has the effect of establishing a pet passport which differs in its format from that of the model passport provided for in
Decision 2003/803.
Thus, while Annex I to Decision 2003/803 provides that the first page of the model passport is to comprise three fields for
entry of the identity and address of three successive owners of the animal, the legislation at issue in the main proceedings
provides that the first page of the pet passport is to have only one field, over which self-adhesive stickers must be successively
affixed when the address or identity of the animal’s owner changes.
In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU, a Commission decision
addressed to the Member States is to be binding in its entirety.
In addition, it follows from the very object of Decision 2003/803, from the model passport set out in Annex I thereto and
from Annex II, A, point 1, to that decision, which states that ‘[t]he format of the model passport shall be uniform’, that
the purpose of that decision is to establish a uniform document, no matter which Member State issues it, and the format and
content of which the Member States are required to follow, subject to minor adaptations exhaustively listed in Annex II, C,
point 4, to that decision.
By laying down the format of the first page of the pet passport on which there is only one field available for entry of the
identity and address of the first owner of the animal and to which any later amendments are made by affixing self-adhesive
stickers, legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings fails to have regard to the requirement for a uniform
format provided for in the form of the model passport, which requires in particular that the first page of the pet passport
have fields and a format enabling the identity and address of three successive owners of the animal to be entered.
Furthermore, as the Commission submitted at the hearing, placing self-adhesive stickers one on top of the other prevents identification
of the successive owners of the animal when such identification is decisive in the field of animal health and Regulation No
988/2003 and Decision 2003/803 specifically lay down requirements in that regard.
Similarly, the use of self-adhesive stickers such as those provided for in the legislation at issue in the main proceedings,
which gives rise to a change to the format laid down in the model passport, also has the effect of hindering the transfer
of pets outside the Member State of origin by requiring, in such situations, the issue of a new passport in the Member State
of destination.
Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the answer to the second question in Case C‑42/10 and the first question in
Case C‑45/10 is that Articles 3(b), 4(2), 5 and the second paragraph of Article 17 of Regulation No 998/2003 and the articles
of and annexes to Decision 2003/803 must be interpreted as:
–        not precluding legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a pet passport is used not only as
a travel document pursuant to European Union legislation but also as proof of identification and registration of dogs at a
national level,
–        precluding legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which only one field is available in the pet
passport for entry of the identity and address of the owner of the animal and to which any later amendments are made by affixing
self-adhesive stickers.

The second questions in Cases C‑45/10 and C‑57/10
By its second questions in Cases C‑45/10 and C‑57/10, the national court asks, in essence, whether national provisions, such
as those in the Belgian legislation concerning the pet passport and relating to the use thereof as proof of identification
and registration of dogs, and to the use of self-adhesive stickers to amend the identity details of the owner and the animal,
on the one hand, and to those relating to the determination of a unique number for cats and ferrets, on the other, must be
regarded as technical standards within the meaning of Directive 98/34.
In that regard, it must be borne in mind, as is apparent from the legal basis of Directive 98/34, namely, Article 100a of
the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 95 EC), and from recitals (2) and (4) in the preamble to that directive, that
the European Union legislation laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards
and regulations and of rules on Information Society services contributes to the proper functioning of the internal market
by ensuring, in particular, the free movement of goods.
In addition, the Court has had occasion to point out that only products which can be valued in money and which are capable,
as such, of forming the subject of commercial transactions fall within the scope of the free movement of goods (see, to that
effect, inter alia, Case 7/68
Commission
v
Italy
[1968] ECR 617, 626, and Case C‑65/05
Commission
v
Greece
[2006] ECR I‑10341, paragraphs 23 to 25).
It is not in dispute that pet passports, since they bear a unique number and identify a specific animal, cannot, as such,
be the object of commercial transactions.
Those passports cannot therefore be classified as ‘products’ within the meaning of the case-law of the Court; nor can Directive
98/34 apply to them. Consequently, specifications such as those contained in the Belgian legislation at issue in the main
proceedings cannot be classified as technical specifications which, in accordance with Article 8 of that directive, must be
communicated in advance to the Commission and, failing that, must not be applied by the national court (see, to that effect,
Case C‑20/05
Schwibbert
[2007] ECR I‑9447, paragraphs 33 and 44 and the case-law cited).
It follows from the foregoing considerations that the answer to the second questions in Cases C‑45/10 and C‑57/10 is that
national provisions, such as those in the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, concerning the pet passport and relating
to its use as proof of identification and registration of dogs, and to the use of self-adhesive stickers to amend the identity
details of the owner and the animal, on the one hand, and to those relating to the determination of a unique number for cats
and ferrets, on the other, do not constitute technical standards within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 98/34 which,
in accordance with Article 8 thereof, must be communicated in advance to the Commission.

Costs
Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court,
the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs
of those parties, are not recoverable.
On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules:
1.
Articles 3(b), 4(2), 5 and the second paragraph of Article 17 of Regulation No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 26 May 2003 on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and
amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC and the articles of and annexes to Commission Decision 2003/803/EC of 26 November 2003
establishing a model passport for the intra-Community movements of dogs, cats and ferrets must be interpreted as meaning that
they do not preclude national legislation which lays down a numbering system for pet passports comprising a unique number
consisting of the two-letter ISO code for the Member State concerned followed by the identification number of the authorised
distributor consisting of two digits and a serial number consisting of nine digits, provided that that legislation guarantees
the uniqueness of that identification number.
2.
Articles 3(b), 4(2), 5 and the second paragraph of Article 17 of Regulation No 998/2003 and the articles of and annexes to
Decision 2003/803 must be interpreted as:
–
not precluding legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a pet passport is used not only as
a travel document pursuant to European Union legislation but also as proof of identification and registration of dogs at a
national level,
–
precluding legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which only one field is available in the pet
passport for entry of the identity and address of the owner of the animal and to which any later amendments are made by affixing
self-adhesive stickers.
3.
National provisions, such as those in the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, concerning the pet passport and relating
to its use as proof of identification and registration of dogs, and to the use of self-adhesive stickers to amend the identity
details of the owner and the animal, on the one hand, and to those relating to the determination of a unique number for cats
and ferrets, on the other, do not constitute technical standards within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 98/34 of the
European Parliament and of the Council laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical
standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 20 July 1998, which, in accordance with Article 8 thereof, must be communicated in advance to the Commission.
[Signatures]
? Language of the case: Dutch.