Case C-12/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di Stato (Sixth Chamber) by order of that Court of 11 November 2003 in the case of Ferrari Mangimi srl and Associazione nazionale produttori alimenti zootecnici ASSALZOO against Ministero per le Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Ministero della Salute, and Ministero delle Attività Produttive
Date: 2004-03-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: animal nutrition, consumer information, interpretation of the law, labelling, manufactured feedingstuffs, raw material

C 59/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.3.2004

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio
di Stato (Sixth Chamber) by order of that Court of
11 November 2003 in the case of Spa Fratelli Martini &
C. Martini and Cargill srl against Ministero per le Politiche
Agricole e Forestali, Ministero della Salute, and Ministero
delle Attività Produttive

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio
di Stato (Sixth Chamber) by order of that Court of
11 November 2003 in the case of Ferrari Mangimi srl and
Associazione nazionale produttori alimenti zootecnici
ASSALZOO against Ministero per le Politiche Agricole e
Forestali, Ministero della Salute, and Ministero delle
Attività Produttive

(Case C-11/04)

(2004/C 59/29)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato
(Council of State, Judicial Division, Sixth
(Sixth Chamber)
Chamber) of 11 November 2003, received at
the Court
Registry on 15 January 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Spa Fratelli Martini & C. Martini and Cargill srl against
Ministero per le Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Ministero della
Salute, and Ministero delle Attività Produttive on the following
questions:

1. Must Article 152(4)(b) EC be interpreted as being the
correct legal basis for the adoption of measures on
labelling, contained in Directive 2002/2/EC, where they
refer to the labelling of vegetable feedingstuffs?

2.

justified on the basis of

In so far as it imposes an obligation to indicate the precise
feed materials contained in compound feedingstuffs,
which applies even to vegetable-based feedingstuffs, is
Directive 2002/2/EC (1)
the
precautionary principle in the absence of a risk assess-
ment, based on scientific studies, which requires that
precautionary measure on the basis of a possible corre-
lation between the quantity of feed materials used and
the risk of the diseases to be prevented? And is that
directive nevertheless justified in the light of the principle
of proportionality, in so far as the obligations on the part
of the feedingstuffs industry to disclose information to
the public authorities, which are required to maintain
business secrecy, and are competent to monitor health
protection, are not sufficiently directed to the attainment
of the public health objectives supposed to be the purpose
of the measure, instead imposing general rules requiring
the indication of
feed
materials used on the labels of vegetable-based feeding-
stuffs?

the percentage quantities of

3.

In so far as it fails to respect the principle of pro-
portionality, does Directive 2002/2/EC conflict with the
fundamental right of property of the citizens of the
Member States?

(1) OJ L 63 of 6.03.2002, p. 23.

(Case C-12/04)

(2004/C 59/30)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato
(Council of State, Judicial Division, Sixth
(Sixth Chamber)
Chamber) of 11 November 2003, received at
the Court
Registry on 15 January 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Ferrari Mangimi srl and Associazione nazionale
produttori alimenti zootecnici ASSALZOO against Ministero
per le Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Ministero della Salute, and
Ministero delle Attività Produttive on the following questions:

1. Must Article 152(4)(b) EC be interpreted as being the
correct legal basis for the adoption of measures on
labelling, contained in Directive 2002/2/EC (1), where
they refer to the labelling of vegetable feedingstuffs?

2.

In so far as it imposes an obligation to indicate the precise
feed materials contained in compound feedingstuffs,
which applies even to vegetable-based feedingstuffs, is
Directive 2002/2/EC justified on the basis of the pre-
cautionary principle in the absence of a risk assessment,
based on scientific studies, which requires that pre-
cautionary measure on the basis of a possible correlation
between the quantity of feed materials used and the risk
of the diseases to be prevented? And is that directive
nevertheless justified in the light of the principle of
proportionality, in so far as the obligations on the part of
the feedingstuffs industry to disclose information to
the public authorities, which are required to maintain
business secrecy, and are competent to monitor health
protection, are not sufficiently directed to the attainment
of the public health objectives supposed to be the purpose
of the measure, instead imposing general rules requiring
the indication of
feed
materials used on the labels of vegetable-based feeding-
stuffs?

the percentage quantities of

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 59/19

3. Must Directive 2002/2/EC be interpreted as meaning that
its application, and therefore its effectiveness, is subject
to the adoption of a positive list of
feed materials
containing their specific names, as set out in the tenth
recital to the preamble and the Commission Report
(COM2003 178) (2) dated 24 April 2003 or must the
implementation of the directive in the Member States
must take place before the adoption of the positive list of
feed materials laid down by the directive, with reference
to a list of the feed materials contained in the compound
feedingstuffs by the names and generic definitions of their
commodity classes?

4.

Is Directive 2002/2/EC to be regarded as unlawful on
the grounds of infringement of the principle of equal
treatment and non-discrimination to the detriment of
feedingstuff producers when compared with the pro-
ducers of foodstuffs for human consumption in so far as
the former are subject to rules requiring indications of the
quantities of feed materials in compound feedingstuffs?

as set out in Article 1(1) thereof, must the definition of
working time set out in the directive be considered to
apply exclusively to the Community thresholds estab-
lished by the directive or must it be considered to have
general scope, applying also to the thresholds which,
while adopted under the various national legal orders
with a view to transposing the directive, may in fact be
set — as they have been in France in the interest of
employee protection — at a level affording greater
protection than the thresholds established by the direc-
tive?

2.

To what extent could a strictly proportional system of
equivalence, which involves calculating the total number
of hours in attendance before applying a weighting
mechanism to them which reflects even the very least
work-intensive periods during periods of inactivity, be
considered compatible with the objectives of the Working
Time Directive?

(1) OJ L 63 of 6.03.2002, p. 23.
(2) Not published.

(1) Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning
certain aspects of the organization of working time (OJ L 307 of
13.12.1993, p. 18).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État
by order of that Court of 3 December 2003 in the case of
Abdelkader Dellas, Confédération générale du travail,
Fédération nationale des syndicats des services de santé
et des services sociaux CFDT and Fédération nationale de
l’action sociale Force Ouvrière against Secrétariat général
du gouvernement; Intervener: Union des fédérations et
syndicats nationaux d’employeurs sans but lucratif du
secteur sanitaire, social et médico-social

(Case C-14/04)

(2004/C 59/31)

Action brought on 20 January 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
lic of Germany

(Case C-16/04)

(2004/C 59/32)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Conseil d’État (Council
of State) of 3 December 2003, received at the Court Registry
on 15 January 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Abdelkader Dellas, Confédération générale du travail, Fédér-
ation nationale des syndicats des services de santé et des
services sociaux CFDT and Fédération nationale de l’action
sociale Force Ouvrière against Secrétariat général du gouverne-
ment; Intervener: Union des fédérations et syndicats nationaux
d’employeurs sans but lucratif du secteur sanitaire, social et
médico-social (Union of national federations and unions of
non-profit-making employers in the health, social and medico-
social sectors) on the following questions:

1.

In the light of
the Working Time
Directive (1), namely to lay down minimum safety and
health requirements for the organisation of working time,

the purpose of

An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 20 January 2004 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Denis Martin and Horstpeter
Kreppel, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that

a)

by virtue of the fact that, contrary to the require-
ments of Community law,

— § 30(4) VBG 1/GUV.01 permits sliding doors
and revolving doors as emergency doors,