Case C-124/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van Beroep voor het bedrĳfsleven by judgment of that Court of 11 March 2003 in the case of (1) Artrada (Freezone) NV, (2) Videmecum BV and (3) Jac. Meisner Internationaal Expeditiebedrĳf BV against Rĳksdienst voor de Keuring van Vee en Vlees
Date: 2003-05-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, interpretation of the law, milk product

C 124/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.5.2003

listing (including in the first category the listing of priority
sites) with the result that, in order to ensure the effectiveness
of the directive, where a Member State identifies a site of
Community importance sustaining priority natural habitat
types or species, there must be considered to be an obligation
to carry out an assessment of plans and projects with a
significant effect on the site even before the Commission draws
up the draft list of sites or adopts the final version of that list
pursuant to Article 21 of the directive and, in fact, with effect
from the drawing up of the national list?

2(b) In the event that Article 2(4) of Directive 92/46/EEC also
refers to semifinished products, according to which
criteria must it be determined whether milk or a milk
product forms an essential part of a product, either in
terms of quantity or for characterization of those prod-
ucts, as referred to in Article 2(4) of Directive 92/46/EEC?

(1) OJ L 268 [1992], p. 1.

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

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by judgment of that Court
of 11 March 2003 in the case of (1) Artrada (Freezone)
NV, (2) Videmecum BV and (3) Jac. Meisner Internationaal
Expeditiebedrijf BV against Rijksdienst voor de Keuring
van Vee en Vlees

(Case C-124/03)

(2003/C 124/13)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep
voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and
Industry) of 11 March 2003, received at the Court Registry on
for a preliminary ruling in the case of
20 March 2003,
(1) Artrada (Freezone) NV, (2) Videmecum BV and (3) Jac.
Meisner Internationaal Expeditiebedrijf BV against Rijksdienst
voor de Keuring van Vee en Vlees (Netherlands Livestock and
Meat Inspectorate) on the following questions:

1(a) Must the term ‘milk for the manufacture of milk-based
products’ in Article 2(2) of Directive 92/46/EEC (1) be
interpreted as meaning that it (also) includes milk con-
stituents of a product which also contains other non-milk
constituents and where the milk constituent cannot be
separated from the non-milk constituents?

1(b) If

the answer to question 1(a)

is affirmative: must
Article 22 of Directive 92/46/EEC be interpreted as
meaning that in the case of imports from non-Member
States that directive is applicable only to the milk
constituent of a product and thus not to the product of
which it is a constituent?

2(a) Does the concept of ‘milk-based products’ in Article 2(4)
of Directive 92/46/EEC concern only finished products
or also semifinished products which must undergo further
processing before they can be offered for sale to the
consumer?

Action brought on 20 March 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Federal Republic
of Germany

(Case C-126/03)

(2003/C 124/14)

An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 20 March 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Klaus Wiedner, of the Com-
mission’s Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by reason of the fact that the contract for
waste transport concluded by the City of Munich was
awarded without compliance with the notification
requirements laid down in Article 8, in conjunction with
Articles 15(2) and 16(1), of Directive 92/50 (1), the
Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil
its
obligations under that directive; and

— Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs

of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

If — as is the case with the Municipality of the City of Munich
— the conditions for the existence of a body governed by
public law are met, there is no need under the directive to
draw a distinction, in the case of every requested provision of
services, as to whether such services are provided in the general
interest and are commercial in nature. It is for that reason
in the present case, the City of Munich, in
irrelevant that,
connection with the provision of a service for a third party,
burns waste in its own incineration plant and does not effect
the transport
itself but relies on a private
undertaking to do so. If a public body tenders successfully for
a contract but is obliged to subcontract out certain services in
order to ensure provision of the overall service, that public
body must apply the procedures set out in Directive 92/50.

to that plant