Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2003 in Case C-423/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Neustadt an der Weinstraße): Emil Färber GmbH & Co. v Stadt Neustadt/Weinstraße (Common agricultural policy — Fees for health inspections and controls of fresh meat — Directive 85/73/EEC)
Date: 2003-11-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: financial aid, interpretation of the law, legal person, meat processing industry, quasi-fiscal charge, tax relief

C 289/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.11.2003

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

fact that the cutting operations take place in the establishment
where the meat is obtained.

(Sixth Chamber)

of 16 October 2003

(1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.

in Case C-423/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgericht Neustadt an der Weinstraße):
Emil Färber GmbH & Co. v Stadt Neustadt/Weinstraße (1)

(Common agricultural policy — Fees for health inspections
and controls of fresh meat — Directive 85/73/EEC)

(2003/C 289/06)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-423/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Verwaltungsgericht Neustadt an der Weinstraße
(Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Emil Färber GmbH & Co. and Stadt
Neustadt/Weinstraße, on the interpretation of the second
paragraph of Annex A, Chapter I, point 2, to Council Directive
85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985 on the financing of veterinary
inspections and controls covered by Directives 89/662/EEC,
90/425/EEC, 90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC (OJ 1985 L 32,
p. 14), as amended and consolidated by Council Directive 96/
43/EC of 26 June 1996 (OJ 1996 L 162, p. 1), the Court (Sixth
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
Chamber), composed of:
Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, V. Skouris
and N. Colneric,
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-
F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 16 October 2003, in which it has ruled:

1.

2.

The second paragraph of Annex A, Chapter I, point 2, to
Council Directive 85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985 on the
financing of veterinary inspections and controls covered by
Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC, 90/675/EEC and 91/
496/EEC, as amended and consolidated by Council Directive
96/43/EC of 26 June 1996, must be interpreted as meaning
that the reduction it lays down of the amounts of the fees
the health controls and inspections
payable in respect of
connected with cutting operations applies also where the cutting
plant and the establishment where the meat is obtained, which
are situated in the same place, belong to two different natural
or legal persons.

The extent of the reduction to be granted under the second
paragraph of Annex A, Chapter I, point 2, to Directive 85/
73, as amended and consolidated by Directive 96/43, depends
on the savings made as regards the salary and social security
costs of the inspection staff and the administrative costs incurred
in carrying out the controls and inspections as a result of the

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 16 October 2003

in Case C-455/01: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Italian Republic (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 96/98/EC — Marine equipment — Free movement
of goods — Measures having equivalent effect to quantitative
restrictions — Obligation to be in possession of a certificate
of conformity issued by a recognised national body — Non-
recognition of tests carried out by bodies recognised in other
Member States)

(2003/C 289/07)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-455/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: R. B. Wainwright and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic
(Agent: I. M. Braguglia, assisted by M. Fiorilli): Application for
a declaration that, by keeping in force legislation under which
products in respect of which there has not yet been full
harmonisation, intended for use on merchant vessels flying
the Italian flag, may be marketed only if a certificate of
conformity has been issued by a national body — so that in
some cases the right to market those products is enjoyed only
by the grantee of the certificate — and by not recognising the
validity of tests carried out in accordance with international
standards by bodies recognised in the other Member States or
in States signatory to the Agreement of 2 May 1992 on the
European Economic Area (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3), even where the
relevant information is made available to the competent
authority and it is clear from the certificates that the equipment
guarantees a degree of safety equivalent to that required for
Italian products, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
its
obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, the Court (Fourth
Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur),
President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and S. von Bahr,
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
given a judgment on 16 October 2003, in which it: