# C_2006036EN.01000601.xml

| 11.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 36/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/6

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 6 December 2005

in Joined Cases C-453/03, C-11/04, C-12/04 and C-194/04; reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court): The Queen, on the application of: ABNA Ltd, Denis Brinicombe, BOCM Pauls Ltd, Devenish Nutrition Ltd, Nutrition Services (International) Ltd, Primary Diets Ltd v Secretary of State for Health, Food Standards Agency (C-453/03); references from the Consiglio di Stato: Fratelli Martini & C. SpA, Cargill Srl, v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Ministero della Salute, Ministero delle Attività Produttive (C-11/04) and Ferrari Mangimi Srl, Associazione nazionale tra i produttori di alimenti zootecnici (Assalzoo) v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Ministero della Salute, Ministero delle Attività Produttive (C-12/04); reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage: Nederlandse Vereniging Diervoederindustrie (Nevedi) v Productschap Diervoeder (C-194/04) (1)

1

(Animal health and public health requirements - Composite feedingstuffs for animals - Indication of the exact percentage of the components of a product - Infringement of the principle of proportionality)

(2006/C 36/10)

Languages of the cases: English, Italian and Dutch

In Joined Cases C-453/03, C-11/04, C-12/04 and C-194/04: References for preliminary rulings under Article 234 EC, brought by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) (C-453/03), by the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) (C-11/04 and C-12/04) and by the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage (Netherlands) (C-194/04), by decisions of 23 October 2003, 11 November 2003 and 22 April 2004, received by the Court on 27 October 2003, 15 January 2004 and 26 April 2004 respectively, in the proceedings The Queen, on the application of: ABNA Ltd, Denis Brinicombe, BOCM Pauls Ltd, Devenish Nutrition Ltd, Nutrition Services (International) Ltd, Primary Diets Ltd v Secretary of State for Health, Food Standards Agency, (C-453/03); Fratelli Martini & C. SpA, Cargill Srl, v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Ministero della Salute, Ministero delle Attività Produttive (C-11/04); Ferrari Mangimi Srl, Associazione nazionale tra i produttori di alimenti zootecnici (Assalzoo) v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Ministero della Salute, Ministero delle Attività Produttive (C-12/04); and Nederlandse Vereniging Diervoederindustrie (Nevedi), v Productschap Diervoeder (C-194/04) — the Court (Grand Chamber) composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, R. Silva de Lapuerta, P. Kūris, E. Juhász, G. Arestis, A. Borg Barthet and M. Ilešič, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, and K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 December 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Queen,

ABNA Ltd, Denis Brinicombe, BOCM Pauls Ltd, Devenish Nutrition Ltd, Nutrition Services (International) Ltd, Primary Diets Ltd v Secretary of State for Health, Food Standards Agency,

Fratelli Martini & C. SpA, Cargill Srl, v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Ministero della Salute, Ministero delle Attività Produttive

Ferrari Mangimi Srl, Associazione nazionale tra i produttori di alimenti zootecnici (Assalzoo) v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Ministero della Salute, Ministero delle Attività Produttive

Nederlandse Vereniging Diervoederindustrie (Nevedi), v Productschap Diervoeder

| 1. | Examination of heading (a) of the question referred in Case C-453/03, of Question 1 in Cases C-11/04 and C-12/04, and of Question 1(a) in Case C-194/04 has not revealed any factor capable of supporting the conclusion that Article 1(1)(b) and 1(4) of Directive 2002/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 amending Council Directive 79/373/EEC on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs and repealing Commission Directive 91/357/EEC was not validly adopted on the basis of Article 152(4)(b) EC. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Examination of heading (a) of the question referred in Case C-453/03, of Question 1 in Cases C-11/04 and C-12/04, and of Question 1(a) in Case C-194/04 has not revealed any factor capable of supporting the conclusion that Article 1(1)(b) and 1(4) of Directive 2002/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 amending Council Directive 79/373/EEC on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs and repealing Commission Directive 91/357/EEC was not validly adopted on the basis of Article 152(4)(b) EC.

| 2. | Examination of Question 4 in Case C-12/04 has not revealed any factor capable of affecting the validity of Article 1(1)(b) and 1(4) of Directive 2002/2 in the light of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Examination of Question 4 in Case C-12/04 has not revealed any factor capable of affecting the validity of Article 1(1)(b) and 1(4) of Directive 2002/2 in the light of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

| 3. | Article 1(1)(b) of Directive 2002/2, which requires manufacturers of compound animal feedingstuffs to indicate, at a customer's request, the exact composition of a feedingstuff, is invalid in the light of the principle of proportionality. By contrast, examination of heading (c) of the question referred in Case C-453/03, of Question 2 in Cases C-11/04 and C-12/04, and Question 1(c) in Case C-194/04 has not revealed any factor capable of affecting the validity of Article 1(4) of Directive 2002/2 in the light of that principle. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 1(1)(b) of Directive 2002/2, which requires manufacturers of compound animal feedingstuffs to indicate, at a customer's request, the exact composition of a feedingstuff, is invalid in the light of the principle of proportionality. By contrast, examination of heading (c) of the question referred in Case C-453/03, of Question 2 in Cases C-11/04 and C-12/04, and Question 1(c) in Case C-194/04 has not revealed any factor capable of affecting the validity of Article 1(4) of Directive 2002/2 in the light of that principle.

| 4. | Directive 2002/2 must be interpreted as meaning that its application is not contingent on the adoption of the positive list of feed materials designated by their specific names referred to in recital (10) in the preamble to that directive. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Directive 2002/2 must be interpreted as meaning that its application is not contingent on the adoption of the positive list of feed materials designated by their specific names referred to in recital (10) in the preamble to that directive.

| 5. | Even in the case in which a court of a Member State forms the view that the conditions have been satisfied under which it may suspend application of a Community measure, in particular where the question of the validity of that measure has already been referred to the Court, the competent national administrative authorities of the other Member States cannot suspend application of that measure until such time as the Court has ruled on its validity. National courts alone are entitled to determine, taking into consideration the specific circumstances of the cases brought before them, whether the conditions governing the grant of interim relief have been satisfied. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Even in the case in which a court of a Member State forms the view that the conditions have been satisfied under which it may suspend application of a Community measure, in particular where the question of the validity of that measure has already been referred to the Court, the competent national administrative authorities of the other Member States cannot suspend application of that measure until such time as the Court has ruled on its validity. National courts alone are entitled to determine, taking into consideration the specific circumstances of the cases brought before them, whether the conditions governing the grant of interim relief have been satisfied.

---

(1)  OJ C 7, 10.01.2004.

1

OJ C 59, 06.03.2004.

OJ C 179, 10.07.2004.

---