Case C-96/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van Beroep voor het Bedrĳfsleven by judgment of that Court of 7 January 2003 in the proceedings between A. Tempelman and Directeur van de Rĳksdienst voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees
Date: 2003-05-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law, animal disease, foot-and-mouth disease, interpretation of the law, national law, slaughter of animals

24.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 124/3

2. Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

is not to apply in the context of

— Incorrect implementation of Article 5 of the Directive.
The Law transposing Article 5 of Directive 93/13/EEC
into Spanish law fails to mention that the rule that the
interpretation that is the most favourable to the consumer
is to prevail
the
procedures laid down in Article 7(2) of the Directive
(prohibitory actions). Thus a situation is created in which
consumers run the risk that the interpretation rule may
go counter to their interests, inasmuch as it will be an
obstacle to the removal from contracts with consumers,
by means of a prohibitory action, unclear terms which,
according to a ‘normal’ interpretation, are unfair;

— incorrect implementation of Article 6(2) of the Directive:
by referring to the provision ‘in Article 5 of the 1980
Rome Convention on the Law applicable to Contractual
Obligations’, the Spanish Law limits the protection offered
by the Directive to consumers, by introducing a twofold
restriction. Thus, the Directive provides for the protection
of all consumers in all contracts concluded with a seller
or supplier, whereas the Spanish Law provides such
protection only for certain types of contract and only
where certain conditions are satisfied, a twofold restric-
tion prohibited by the Directive.

( 1) Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in

consumer contracts (OJ L 95 of 21.4.1993, p. 29).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by judgment of that Court
of 7 January 2003 in the proceedings between A. Tempel-
man and Directeur van de Rijksdienst voor de keuring
van Vee en Vlees

(Case C-96/03)

(2003/C 124/05)

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 7 January 2003, received at the Court Registry on
4 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between A. Tempelman and Directeur van de Rijksdienst voor
de keuring van Vee en Vlees on the following questions:

1. May a Member State derive from Community law the
power to decide to kill animals which are suspected of
being infected or contaminated with the foot-and-mouth
virus?

2. Does Directive 85/511/EEC (1), as amended by Directive
90/423/EEC (2), afford the Member States scope to (order
or) take supplementary national measures to control foot-
and-mouth disease?

3. What limits does Community law place on a Member
State with regard to taking supplementary national
measures other than those provided for in Directive 85/
511/EEC, as amended by Directive 90/423/EEC?

(1) OJ L 315 [1985], p. 11.
(2) OJ L 224 [1990], p. 13.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by judgment of that Court
of 7 January 2003 in the proceedings between Mr and
Mrs T.H.J.M. van Schajk and Directeur van de Rijksdienst
voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees

(Case C-97/03)

(2003/C 124/06)

Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of
European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep
voor het Bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and
Industry) of 7 January 2003, received at the Court Registry on
4 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between Mr and Mrs T.H.J.M. van Schajk and Directeur van de
Rijksdienst voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees on the following
questions:

1. May a Member State derive from Community law the
power to decide to kill animals which are suspected of
being infected or contaminated with the foot-and-mouth
virus?

2. Does Directive 85/511/EEC (1), as amended by Directive
90/423/EEC (2), afford the Member States scope to (order
or) take supplementary national measures to control foot-
and-mouth disease?

3. What limits does Community law place on a Member
State with regard to taking supplementary national
measures other than those provided for in Directive 85/
511/EEC, as amended by Directive 90/423/EEC?

(1) OJ L 315 [1985], p. 11.
(2) OJ L 224 [1990], p. 13.