# C_2015016EN.01001603.xml

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 14 October 2014 — Masterrind GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-469/14)

(2015/C 016/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Masterrind GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the provision contained in point 1.4 of Chapter V of Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 (1), to the effect that, after 14 hours of travel, animals are to be given a rest period of at least one hour sufficient for them in particular to be given liquid and if necessary fed, after which they may be transported for a further 14 hours, to be interpreted as meaning that the periods of transport may also be interrupted by a rest period of more than one hour or by several rest periods at least one of which lasts for one hour? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the provision contained in point 1.4 of Chapter V of Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 (1), to the effect that, after 14 hours of travel, animals are to be given a rest period of at least one hour sufficient for them in particular to be given liquid and if necessary fed, after which they may be transported for a further 14 hours, to be interpreted as meaning that the periods of transport may also be interrupted by a rest period of more than one hour or by several rest periods at least one of which lasts for one hour?

| 2. | Is the paying agency of the individual Member State bound by the entry made by the official veterinarian at the exit point in accordance with Article 2(3) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 817/2010 of 16 September 2010 laying down detailed rules pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards requirements for the granting of export refunds related to the welfare of live bovine animals during transport (2), with the result that the lawfulness of a refusal to make the entry is reviewable only by the authority accountable for the actions of the border veterinarian, or is the entry made by the official veterinarian nothing more than a mere procedural act by the authority which may be contested only in tandem with the appeals that lie against the paying agency’s substantive decisions? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the paying agency of the individual Member State bound by the entry made by the official veterinarian at the exit point in accordance with Article 2(3) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 817/2010 of 16 September 2010 laying down detailed rules pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards requirements for the granting of export refunds related to the welfare of live bovine animals during transport (2), with the result that the lawfulness of a refusal to make the entry is reviewable only by the authority accountable for the actions of the border veterinarian, or is the entry made by the official veterinarian nothing more than a mere procedural act by the authority which may be contested only in tandem with the appeals that lie against the paying agency’s substantive decisions?

---

(1)  OJ 2005 L 3, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2010 L 245, p. 16.

---