Case C-145/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that Court of 31 January 2002 in the case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen against Denkavit Futtermittel GmbH, Interested party: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses at the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
Date: 2002-06-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: animal feedingstuffs, food additive, foodstuffs legislation, import, preliminary issue

15.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 144/25

importance, there would be no obligation in Italy to apply the
conservation measures laid down in Article 6(2) of the directive
to that site during the consultation period and pending a
Council decision.

3. Does the answer to Question 2 turn on whether the
difference in the rules in the Member State of manufacture
and the Member State of importation results from the
fact that different use has been made of the possibility to
lay down rules under Article 12(2)(b) of Directive No 70/
524/EEC?

(1) OJ L 206 of 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(1) OJ L 270 of 14.12.1970, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-
tungsgericht by order of that Court of 31 January 2002 in
the case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen against Denkavit
Futtermittel GmbH, Interested party: Vertreter des Bun-
desinteresses at the Bundesverwaltungsgericht

(Case C-145/02)

(2002/C 144/42)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsge-
richt (Federal Administrative Court) of 31 January 2002,
for a
received at the Court Registry on 18 April 2002,
preliminary ruling in the case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
against Denkavit Futtermittel GmbH, Interested party: Vertreter
des Bundesinteresses (Representative of the Federal Interest) at
the Bundesverwaltungsgericht on the following questions:

1. Are national provisions of the law on feedingstuffs, which
prohibit imports of a feedingstuff manufactured lawfully
in another Member State on the ground that the level of
vitamin D 3 does not comply with the law of the State of
importation,
to be assessed directly in the light of
Articles 28 and 30 EC?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
(England and Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that
court dated 27 March 2002, in the case of Mrs M.K.
Alabaster against 1) Woolwich PLC, 2) Secretary of State
for Social Security

(Case C-147/02)

(2002/C 144/43)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
(England and Wales) (Civil Division) dated 27 March 2002,
which was received at the Court Registry on 22 April 2002,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Mrs M.K. Alabaster
against 1) Woolwich PLC, 2) Secretary of State for Social
Security, on the following questions:

In a situation where:

a)

b)

the earnings-related element of a woman’s Statutory
Maternity Pay (‘SMP’) is calculated by reference to her
normal weekly earnings for a eight week period ending
on 15th week before the expected week of confinement
(‘the relevant period’), and

the employer grants a pay rise, which is not back-dated
to the relevant period, at any time after the end of
the relevant period used for calculating that woman’s
earnings-related element of SMP and before the end of
her maternity leave:

Question 1

2.

Is Article 19 of Directive 70/524/EEC (1) concerning
additives to be interpreted as permitting the prohibition
on imports of a supplementary feedingstuff manufactured
lawfully in another Member State on the ground that it
exceeds the level of vitamin D 3 permitted in the Member
State of importation?

Is Article 141 of the EC Treaty and the judgment in Gillespie
[1996] ECR I-475 to be interpreted as meaning that the
woman is entitled to have that pay rise taken into consideration
in calculating or re-calculating the earnings-related element of
her SMP?