# C_2007056EN.01002301.xml

| 10.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/23

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Jönköping (Sweden) lodged on 22 January 2007 — Mattias Jalkhed v Jordbruksverket

(Case C-18/07)

(2007/C 56/42)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Kammarrätten i Jönköping

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mattias Jalkhed

Applicant:

Defendant: Jordbruksverket

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a national provision prohibiting the holding of wild birds as domestic animals or in the pursuit of a hobby constitute a quantitative restriction on imports or a measure having equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 28 of the EC Treaty, if the provision in question means that it is not permitted to import such a bird into the Member State in question from another Member State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a national provision prohibiting the holding of wild birds as domestic animals or in the pursuit of a hobby constitute a quantitative restriction on imports or a measure having equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 28 of the EC Treaty, if the provision in question means that it is not permitted to import such a bird into the Member State in question from another Member State?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: Can the national provision in question be regarded, despite that, as being compatible with Community law, with reference to the fact that the reason for the provision, according to the competent national authority, is the difficulty of accommodating the wild birds' natural behaviour in captivity (that is to say, the birds' social behaviour, hunting behaviour and need for freedom of movement) and their lack of domestication, which causes fear and undesirable stress in handling?






  (a) | What is the potential significance of the fact that the national provision in question has been notified to the Commission as a draft technical regulation pursuant to Directive 98/34/EC (1) (amended by Directive 98/48/EC) and has not been the subject of any objection from the Commission (on a comparison with, primarily, the second paragraph of Article 8(5) of that directive)? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: Can the national provision in question be regarded, despite that, as being compatible with Community law, with reference to the fact that the reason for the provision, according to the competent national authority, is the difficulty of accommodating the wild birds' natural behaviour in captivity (that is to say, the birds' social behaviour, hunting behaviour and need for freedom of movement) and their lack of domestication, which causes fear and undesirable stress in handling?

(a)

What is the potential significance of the fact that the national provision in question has been notified to the Commission as a draft technical regulation pursuant to Directive 98/34/EC (1) (amended by Directive 98/48/EC) and has not been the subject of any objection from the Commission (on a comparison with, primarily, the second paragraph of Article 8(5) of that directive)?

1

| (b) | What is the potential significance of the fact that there is no harmonisation at a Community level with regard to the import and holding of, inter alia, wild birds such as those in question in the case (contrary to the situation under the rules which was at issue in the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C 162/97 Nilsson [and Others])? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

What is the potential significance of the fact that there is no harmonisation at a Community level with regard to the import and holding of, inter alia, wild birds such as those in question in the case (contrary to the situation under the rules which was at issue in the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C 162/97 Nilsson [and Others])?

---

(1)  OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37.

1

---