Case C-286/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Treviso, Prima Sezione by order of that Court of 26 June 2002 in the case of Bellio F. lli S.r.l. against Prefettura di Treviso
Date: 2002-10-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural waste, animal nutrition, animal product, animal protein, interpretation of the law, technical standard

C 247/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

12.10.2002

2.

3.

If so, can such an objection be raised not only by the
authority of destination but also by the authority of
dispatch?

If so,
is the authority of dispatch entitled to base its
assessment of whether the planned recovery of the waste
at the place of destination is compatible with health and
environmental imperatives on the standards applicable in
the State of dispatch even where they are higher than the
standards applicable in the State of destination?

4. Under the second indent of Article 7(4)(a) of Regulation
No 259/93, can an objection to the shipment of waste
for recovery be raised on the ground that the planned
recovery contravenes national laws and regulations relat-
ing to environmental protection, public order, public
safety or health protection?

5.

If so, can the authority of dispatch raise such an objection
on the ground that the recovery contravenes national
laws and regulations in force at the place of dispatch?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
richt Minden by order of that Court of 26 July 2002
in the case of Edeltraud Elsner-Lakeberg against Land
Nordrhein-Westfalen

(Case C-285/02)

(2002/C 247/07)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Treviso, Prima Sezione by order of that Court of 26 June
2002 in the case of Bellio F. lli S.r.l. against Prefettura di
Treviso

(Case C-286/02)

(2002/C 247/08)

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Treviso,
Prima Sezione (District Court, Treviso, First Chamber) of
26 June 2002, received at the Court Registry on 5 August
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bellio F. lli S.r.l.
against Prefettura di Treviso on the following questions:

1. Are the first indent of Article 2(2) of Council Decision
2000/766 (1) and Article 1(1) of Commission Decision
2001/9 (2), read together with the other Community rules
on which those provisions are based, to be interpreted as
meaning that the accidental presence of an unforeseen or
prohibited substance in fish flour used in the production
of feed-stuffs for animals other than ruminants may be
considered both legally and materially acceptable and
that, accordingly, traders are allowed a reasonable margin
of error?

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
Minden (Administrative Court, Minden) of 26 July 2002,
received at the Court Registry on 2 August 2002,
for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Edeltraud Elsner-Lakeberg
against Land Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following question:

2.

Is it compatible with Article 141 EC in conjunction with
Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 (1) on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
the application of the principle of equal pay for men and
women that men and women teachers, part-time as well as
full-time, who are officials in the Land North-Rhine Westphalia
are not granted remuneration for excess hours worked if that
additional work does not exceed three teaching periods in the
calendar month?

( 1) OJ L 45, p. 19.

the principle of
in the light of
In the affirmative,
proportionality and the principle of precaution, and in
consideration of the Community provisions applicable in
the domains in which reference is made to accidental
contamination of food-industry products and indications
are given of relevant margins of error, does an accidental
contamination of 0.1 %, and in any case of not more
than 0,5 %, of fragments of mammalian bone in fish flour
intended for the production of feed-stuffs for animals
other than ruminants warrant the adoption of a draconian
sanction such as the complete destruction of that fish
flour?

3. Does the exclusion of any margin of error in relation to
the presence of the substances mentioned in the preceding
questions amount to the introduction of a technical
standard within the meaning of Directive 83/189 (3) (as
amended) which would have to be notified in advance to
the European Commission?

12.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 247/5

4. Are the provisions of Article 28 and 30 EC on the free
movement of goods, applicable to Norway on the basis
of Articles 8 to 16 of the European Economic Area
Agreement (EEA Agreement), to be interpreted, with
reference to the provisions contained in Council Decision
2000/766/EC and Commission Decision 2001/9 cited in
question (1) above, as meaning that a Member State may
not impose a requirement of zero error in a situation
such as that described in questions (1) and (2) above?

( 1) OJ L 306 of 7.12.2000, p. 32.
( 2) OJ L 2 of 5.1.2001, p. 32.
( 3) OJ L 109 of 26.4.1983, p. 8.

Action brought on 9 August 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-288/02)

(2002/C 247/09)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 August
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by K. Simonsson and M. Patakia, Legal Advisers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg. The applicant
claims that the Court should declare that by:

— expressly conferring the right to carry passengers between
Greek mainland ports solely upon Greek passenger ships
and the right to carry out tours with passenger ships of a
gross tonnage exceeding 650 gt by way of island cabotage
solely upon Greek passenger ships,

— requiring in the case of Community ships entered in a
second or international register a certificate from the
competent authority of the flag State declaring that that
ship is allowed to provide cabotage services,

— considering that the Peloponnese constitues an island,

and

— applying to Community tankers, freighters, passenger
ships and tourist ships, and to cruise ships which carry
out sea tours by way of island cabotage its rules as host
State relating to manning conditions, and requiring the
shipowners to submit an application to the competent
authorities for measurement of the gross tonnage of the
ship, in order for the Greek authorities to calculate the
basic composition of the crew,

the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Articles 1, 3 and 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92
of 7 December 1992 (1) applying the principle of freedom to
provide services to maritime transport within Member States
(maritime cabotage).

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the Commission, current Greek legislation is not
consistent with Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92. The fact that
the regulation is of direct application and its provisions prevail
over national law does not release Member States from the
obligation to repeal national provisions incompatible with
Community law.

As regards the classification of the ports of the Peloponnese as
island ports, the Commission points out that the Peloponnese
is separated from the rest of Greece by a man-made canal and
is linked by road and rail with the rest of the country. It
therefore accords with common sense, and also with the case-
law of the Court of Justice (see Joined Cases C-15/98 and
C-105/99 Italy and Sardegna Lines v Commission [2000] ECR
I-8855, paragraph 55), for the Peloponnese to be considered
part of mainland Greece.

Finally, as regards island cabotage, the Commission submits
that, while host State rules apply for regulating manning-
related issues, those rules must not, however, in any event be
contrary to Article 49 of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 364, 12.12.1992, p. 7.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Royal Court of
Jersey, Samedi Division, by order of that court dated
5 August 2002, in the case of Jersey Produce Marketing
Organisation Ltd against 1) The States of Jersey and
2) Jersey Potato Export Marketing Board, Interveners:
1) Top Produce Limited and 2) Fairview Farm Ltd

(Case C-293/02)

(2002/C 247/10)

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Royal Court of
Jersey, Samedi Division, dated 5 August 2002, which was
received at the Court Registry on 13 August 2002, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Jersey Produce Marketing
Organisation Ltd against 1) The States of Jersey and 2) Jersey
Potato Export Marketing Board, Interveners: 1) Top Produce
Limited and 2) Fairview Farm Ltd, on the following questions:

1.

Is a statutory Scheme such as that which regulates the
export of potatoes from Jersey to the United Kingdom to
be considered as a measure having an effect equivalent to
quantitative restrictions on exports, contrary to Article 29
EC, by reason of the fact that potatoes sent directly from
Jersey to the United Kingdom may travel via another
Member State but without leaving the carrying vessel?