Case C-511/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by order of that Court of 5 December 2003 in the case of the State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries) against 1. Ten Kate Holding Musselkanaal BV, 2. Ten Kate Europrodukten BV, and 3. Ten Kate Produktie Maatschappĳ BV
Date: 2004-03-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, animal disease, animal nutrition, animal protein, interpretation of the law

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 59/3

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Martinez is ordered to pay the costs of

the present

proceedings.

3. Mr Martinez is also ordered to pay the Parliament’s costs in
connection with the application for interim measures in Case
C-488/01 P-R.

(1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden by order of that Court of 5 December 2003
in the case of the State of the Netherlands (Ministry of
Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries) against
1. Ten Kate Holding Musselkanaal BV, 2. Ten Kate
Europrodukten BV, and 3. Ten Kate Produktie Maatschap-
pij BV

(Case C-511/03)

(2004/C 59/04)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of
the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden of 5 December 2003, received at the Court
Registry on 8 December 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of the State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Agriculture,
Nature Management and Fisheries) against 1. Ten Kate Holding
Musselkanaal BV, 2. Ten Kate Europrodukten BV, and 3. Ten
Kate Produktie Maatschappij BV on the following questions:

1. Must the question whether, in a case such as this, the
State has an obligation towards a citizen who has an
interest in it, such as Ten Kate, to make use of the legal
remedies available to it under Article 175 of the EC
Treaty (Article 232 EC) or Article 173 of the EC Treaty
(Article 230 EC) and, in the event of failure to comply
with such an obligation, to pay compensation for the
damage sustained as a consequence by the citizen con-
cerned, be answered by reference to rules of Netherlands
national law or by reference to rules of Community law?

2.

If the question referred to in Question 1 must be answered
wholly or partly by reference to rules of Community law:

(a) Are there circumstances in which Community law
can entail an obligation and liability as referred to in
that question?

3. Must Article 1(2) of Decision 94/381/EC, read as far as
necessary in conjunction with the provisions of Article 17
of Directive 90/425/EEC and Article 17 of Directive 89/
662/EEC, be interpreted as giving rise to an obligation for
the Commission or the Council to grant an authorisation
as referred to therein if the system which the requesting
Member State applies or intends to apply is in fact suitable
for distinguishing between protein from ruminant and
non-ruminant species?

4.

To what extent does the answer to Question 3 entail a
restriction of the right, or of the State’s obligation referred
to in Question 1, to challenge a failure to grant an
authorisation such as that at issue in this case under
Article 175 of the EC Treaty (Article 232 EC), or to
challenge a refusal to grant such an authorisation under
Article 173 of the EC Treaty (Article 230 EC)?

(Question 3 is relevant whether the question referred to
in Question 1 must be answered according to Netherlands
national law or whether that answer must be determined
according to Community law, in the latter case unless the
answer to Question 2(a) is in the negative. Question 4 is
relevant only in the light of an answer to Question 2(b).)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
Hamburg by order of that Court of 12 November 2003 in
the case of Eichsfelder Schlachtbetrieb GmbH against
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-515/03)

(2004/C 59/05)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Ham-
burg (Hamburg Finance Court) of 12 November 2003, received
at the Court Registry on 9 December 2003, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Eichsfelder Schlachtbetrieb GmbH against
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas on the following question:

Is Article 17(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (1) as amended
by Regulation (EC) No 1384/95 (2)
to be interpreted as
meaning that a product is considered to have been imported
if, after its release for free circulation in a non-member country,
it undergoes substantial processing or working within the
meaning of Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 2913/92 (3) and
then is brought back into the Community upon drawback and
payment of the normal import duties?

(b)

If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the affirmative,
which rules of Community law must be used as the
criterion when answering the question referred to

(1) OJ L 351, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 134, p. 14.
(3) OJ L 302, p. 1.

in Question 1 in a specific case such as this?