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: 2003-06-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: import, interpretation of the law, manufactured goods, milk product, processed food product, processed foodstuff, third country

C 146/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.6.2003

Is Article 4(5) of Directive No 92/43 (1) of 21 May 1992 to be
interpreted as meaning that the measures under Article 6 and,
in particular, under Article 6(3) of that directive are mandatory
for the Member States only after final approval at Community
level of the list of sites under Article 21 or, alternatively, in
addition to determination of the ordinary commencement date
of conservation measures, must a distinction be drawn between
declaratory listing and determinative 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.

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

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?

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?

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 charac-
terization of
those products, as referred to in
Article 2(4) of Directive 92/46/EEC?

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

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 146/33)

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
20 March 2003,
for a preliminary ruling 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 (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 constituents of a product which also
contains other non-milk constituents and where the
milk constituent cannot be separated from the non-
milk constituents?

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 146/34)

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.