EN Official Journal of the European Union C 253/9

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Ítélőtábla — Hungary) — Érsekcsanádi Mezőgazdasági Zrt v Bács-Kiskun Megyei Kormányhivatal

(Case C-56/13) (1)

((Directives 92/40/EEC and 2005/94/EC - Decisions 2006/105/EC and 2006/115/EC - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 16, 17 and 47 - Measures for the control of avian influenza - Compensation for damage))

2014/C 253/12

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szegedi Ítélőtábla

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Érsekcsanádi Mezőgazdasági Zrt

Respondent: Bács-Kiskun Megyei Kormányhivatal

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Szegedi Ítélőtábla — Interpretation of Council Directive 92/40/EEC of 19 May 1992 introducing Community measures for the control of avian influenza (OJ 1992 L 167, p. 1) and Council Directive 2005/94/EC of 20 December 2005 on Community measures for the control of avian influenza and repealing Directive 92/40/EEC (OJ 2006 L 10, p. 16) — Undertaking engaged in agricultural activities relating to the keeping of animals, including the fattening of turkeys, refused permission to keep turkeys for fattening in a rearing enclosure located in a protection and surveillance zone established by administrative decision in respect of avian influenza — Compensation for damage caused to individuals by interim protection measures taken in the course of implementation of EU legislation

Operative part of the judgment

1. Commission Decisions 2006/105/EC of 15 February 2006 concerning certain interim protection measures in relation to suspected cases of highly pathogenic avian influenza in wild birds in Hungary and 2006/115/EC of 17 February 2006 concerning certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza in wild birds in the Community and repealing Decisions 2006/86/EC, 2006/90/EC, 2006/91/EC, 2006/94/EC, 2006/104/EC and 2006/105/EC must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude (i) national measures such as the administrative decisions of 15 and 21 February 2006 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 such as that of 23 February 2006, refusing to grant an undertaking such as the appellant in the main proceedings permission to keep turkeys in its rearing enclosure at Nagybaracska.

2. First, Decisions 2006/105 and 2006/115 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, second, the Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to rule on the legality of a provision of national law such as that at issue in the main proceedings — 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.

(1) OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.