Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 November 2000 in Case C-37/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands): criminal proceedings against Roelof Donkersteeg (Directive 83/189/EEC — Technical standards and regulations — Obligation to notify — Footwear disinfecting facilities on agricultural holdings — Vaccination of pigs)
Date: 2001-02-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: health legislation, interpretation of the law, livestock farming, swine, technical standard, trade restriction

10.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 45/5

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 16 November 2000

(Sixth Chamber)

of 16 November 2000

in Case C-37/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands): criminal
proceedings against Roelof Donkersteeg (1)

in Case C-217/99: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

(Directive 83/189/EEC — Technical standards and regu-
lations — Obligation to notify — Footwear disinfecting
facilities on agricultural holdings — Vaccination of pigs)

(2001/C 45/09)

(Language of the Case: Dutch)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-37/99, reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden (Netherlands), for a preliminary ruling in the
criminal proceedings pending before the court the against
Roelof Donkersteeg — on the interpretation of Article 1 of
Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down
a procedure for the provision of information in the field of
technical standards and regulations (OJ 1983 L 109, p. 8), as
amended by Council Directive 88/182/EEC of 22 March 1988
(OJ 1988 L 81, p. 75) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of
the Chamber,
J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 16 November, in which it has
ruled:

1. A provision such as that in issue in the main proceedings,
which requires there to be one or more disinfectant containers
or appropriate cleaning facilities for disinfecting footwear on
pig farms,
the purposes of Council Directive
83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for
the provision of information in the field of technical standards
and regulations, as amended by Council Directive 88/182/EEC
of 22 March 1988, a technical regulation which ought to have
been notified to the Commission before being adopted.

is not,

for

2. A provision such as that in issue in the main proceedings which
requires every farmer to have the pigs on his holding vaccinated
Aujeszky’s disease is not,
for the purposes of Directive as
amended by Directive 88/182, a technical regulation which
ought to have been notified to the Commission before being
adopted.

(Failure to fulfil obligations — Free movement of goods
— Measures having equivalent effect — Nutrients and
foodstuffs containing nutrients — Obligation to submit a
notification file — Obligation to include notification number
on labelling)

(2001/C 45/10)

(Language of the Case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-217/99, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: H. van Lier) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agents: initially
Y. Houyet and then P. Rietjens) — application for a declaration
that, by laying down in Article 6(1)(1) of the Royal Decree of
3 March 1992, concerning the placing on the market of
nutrients and foodstuffs to which nutrients have been added
(Moniteur Belge of 15 April 1992, p. 8467), an obligation to
indicate on the labelling of the products to which the decree
applies the notification number provided for by Article 4
thereof,
its
obligations under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, Article 28 EC) et seq. — the Court
(Sixth
Chamber), composed of C. Gulmann, President of the Chamb-
er, V. Skouris (Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; N. Fen-
nely, Advocate General: H.A. Rühl, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 16 November 2000 in which it:

the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil

1. Declares that, by laying down in Article 6(1)(1) of the Royal
Decree of 3 March 1992, concerning the placing on the market
of nutrients and foodstuffs to which nutrients have been added,
an obligation to indicate on the labelling of the products to
which the decree applies the notification number provided for
by Article 4 thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, Article 28 EC) et seq.;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.1999.

(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.