Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2014:352
Date: 2014-05-22
Language of the case: Hungarian
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties;Public health;Veterinary legislation;Eggs and poultry;Non-contractual liability;Fundamental rights;Charter of Fundamental Rights
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Hungary

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 22 May 2014 1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Clearly irrelevant questions and hypothetical questions raised in a context not permitting a useful answer (Art. 267 TFEU) 2. Agriculture — Approximation of laws on animal health — Veterinary and zootechnical checks in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products of animal origin — Commission decisions relating to highly pathogenic avian influenza in wild birds — National measures establishing a protection zone in a defined area, prohibiting the movement of poultry within that zone and refusing to grant an undertaking permission to keep turkeys in a rearing enclosure in that zone — Lawfulness (Commission Decisions 2006/105 and 2006/115) 3. Agriculture — Approximation of laws on animal health — Veterinary and zootechnical checks in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products of animal origin — Commission decisions relating to highly pathogenic avian influenza in wild birds — Establishment of a system of compensation for any damage caused by the measures for which those decisions provide — No such system established — Legality of a provision of national law that does not provide for full compensation for damage sustained — Assessment in the light of the right to an effective remedy, the right to property and the freedom to conduct a business — National legislation which does not constitute a measure implementing EU law and which has no other links to the latter — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Commission Decisions 2006/105 and 2006/115) 4. EU law — Direct effect — Individual rights —— Protection by the national courts — Proceedings before the courts — Principle of procedural autonomy — Observance of the principle of equivalence — Verification by the national court 1. See the text of the decision. (see para. 36) 2. Decisions 2006/105 concerning certain interim protection measures in relation to suspected cases of highly pathogenic avian influenza in wild birds in Hungary and 2006/115 concerning certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza in wild birds in the Community must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude (i) national measures ordering the establishment of a protection zone in the administrative territory of Csátalja and Nagybaracska (Hungary) and prohibiting the movement of poultry within that zone or (ii) an administrative opinion refusing to grant an undertaking permission to keep turkeys in its rearing enclosure in that territory. (see para. 44, operative part 1) 3. First, Decisions 2006/105 concerning certain interim protection measures in relation to suspected cases of highly pathogenic avian influenza in wild birds in Hungary and 2006/115 concerning certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza in wild birds in the Community must be interpreted to the effect that they neither include nor refer to any provisions establishing a system of compensation for damage caused by the measures for which they provide and, secondly, the Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to rule on the legality of a provision of national law — which does not provide for full compensation, including in respect of loss of profit, for damage sustained as a result of the adoption, in accordance with EU law, of national protection measures against avian influenza — in the light of the right to an effective remedy, the right to property and the freedom to conduct a business. Decisions 2006/105 and 2006/115 do not include any provision establishing a system of compensation for damage caused to individuals by the implementation of the measures for the control of avian influenza provided for by those decisions. Moreover, it cannot be inferred from either the wording or the purpose of Directives 89/662 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market and 90/425 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market, which were the basis on which Decisions 2006/105 and 2006/115 were adopted, that the Commission has any competence conferring on it power to establish a system of compensation. Lastly, although the EU legislature may consider, in the context of its broad discretion in the field of agricultural policy, that full or partial compensation is appropriate for owners of farms on which animals have been destroyed and slaughtered, the existence, in EU law, of a general principle requiring compensation to be paid in all circumstances cannot be inferred from that fact. Since there is no basis in EU law for an obligation to pay compensation, a national measure which provides for the State concerned to pay compensation in respect of actual damage and costs, with the exception of loss of profit, does not fall within the scope of EU law but is exclusively a matter for the national legislature. In the context of the preliminary ruling procedure, it is not for the Court to rule on the interpretation of provisions of national law or to decide whether the referring court’s interpretation of them is correct. Furthermore, under Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which governs its field of application, the provisions of the Charter are addressed to the Member States only when they are implementing EU law. That provision confirms the Court’s settled case-law, according to which the fundamental rights guaranteed in the legal order of the European Union are applicable in all situations governed by EU law, but cannot be applied outside such situations. Where a legal situation does not come within the scope of EU law, the Court does not have jurisdiction to rule on it and any provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union relied upon cannot, of themselves, form the basis for such jurisdiction. (see paras 46-48, 52-54, 57, operative part 2) 4. See the text of the decision. (see para. 61)