1.

The questions referred to this Court for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht [Federal Administrative Court] arose in proceedings between Denkavit, a German undertaking producing feedingstuffs, and the Landesamt für Ernährungswirtschaft Nordrhein-Westfalen [North-Rhine Westphalia Regional Board for Food Production and Distribution]. Denkavit wishes to market complete feedingstuffs for calves which do not comply with certain statutory provisions regarding minimum iron content and maximum sodium content, as a result of which they may not be marketed in German territory (Paragraph 14 (1) of the Law of 2 July 1975 on Feedingstuffs, BGBl. I, p. 1745). Those requirements result from Paragraph 7 (2) of the Feedingstuffs Regulation of 16 June 1976 (BGBl. I, p. 1497) as amended on 19 July 1979 (BGBl. I, p. 1122) and which became Paragraph 8 (3) of the same regulation in the version in force since 8 April 1981 (BGBl. I, p. 352). Those are the same provisions upon which the Commission has asked the Court to rule in Case 28/84, in which I have just delivered my Opinion. The question of the compatibility of those rules with Directive 70/524/EEC of 23 November 1970 concerning additives in feedingstuffs, hereinafter referred to as ‘the additives directive’ (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1970 III, p. 840), Directive 74/63/EEC of 17 December 1973 on the fixing of maximum permitted levels for undesirable substances and products in feedingstuffs, hereinafter referred to as ‘the undesirable substances directive’ (Official Journal 1974, L 38, p. 31) and Directive 79/373/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the marketing of compound feedingstuffs, hereinafter referred to as ‘the compound feedingstuffs directive’ (Official Journal 1979, L 86, p. 30). The Bundesverwaltungsgericht, to which the case came on final appeal, wishes to reach a decision on the same question of compatibility by asking the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the following four questions: (1) Is the term ‘additives’ contained in Article 2 (a) of Council Directive 70/524/EEC of 23 November 1970 concerning additives in feedingstuffs to be interpreted: (i) as encompassing all substances which are contained in feedingstuffs and affect their characteristics or livestock production, or (ii) as encompassing the abovementioned substances only where they are not merely contained in the constituents of feedingstuffs (as socalled ‘constituent substances’) but are added — possibly on their own — to the constituents of feedingstuffs? (2) Is the rule contained in Article 13 of Council Directive 70/524/EEC of 23 November 1970 concerning additives in feedingstuffs to be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are no longer permitted to subject feedingstuffs to a marketing restriction relating to the absence of a substance by providing that milk-replacer feed must have a certain minimum iron content? (3) Are the rules contained in Articles 5 and 7 of Council irective 74/63/EEC of 17 December 1973 on the fixing of maximum permitted levels for undesirable substances and products in feedingstuffs to be interpreted as meaning: (i) that the Member States are in principle no longer permitted to subject feedingstuffs to a marketing restriction relating to the presence of a substance not listed in the annex to the directive by providing that milk-replacer feed may only have a specified sodium content; (ii) that the Member States may only in exceptional cases, in accordance with the first sentence of Article 5 (1) of the abovedirective and subject to compliance with the second sentence of that provision, provisionally fix a maximum sodium content? (4) (a) Is the rule contained in Article 1 (2)(b) and (c) of Council Directive 79/373/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the marketing of compound feedingstuffs to be interpreted as meaning: — that the Member States are still not permitted to subject feedingstuffs to marketing restrictions relating to the absence of additives within the meaning of Directive 70/524/EEC and the presence of undesirable substances within the meaning of Directive 74/63/EEC which according to those directives may not be prescribed, or (b) is the rule contained in the second sentence of Article 3 of Directive 79/373/EEC to be interpreted as meaning: (i) that the Member States are permitted to subject feedingstuffs to a marketing restriction relating to the absence of an additive or the presence of an undesirable substance where the absence of the substance in question or the presence thereof constitutes a danger to animal or human health; (ii) and that they may do so without having recourse to the adaptation procedure under Article 6 (2) A (a) ofDirective 70/524/EEC or Article 5 (1) of Directive 74/63/EEC? The Bundesverwaltungsgericht's intention in referring those four questions to the Court of Justice is essentially to obtain an interpretation of the term ‘additive’ and to have the Court define precisely the extent of the residual powers of the Member States in regard to the three abovementioned directives.