Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 April 2004 inCase C-286/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale de Treviso): Bellio F.lli against Prefettura di Treviso (‘Agriculture — Animalhealth — Protection measures with regard to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies— Use of animal proteins in animal feed’)
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural waste, animal nutrition, animal product, animal protein, interpretation of the law, technical standard

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/13

It is for the national court to decide whether a contractual term
such as that at issue in the main proceedings satisfies the
requirements for it to be regarded as unfair under Article 3(1)
of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair
terms in consumer contracts.

recovery of the stock of hake in ICES sub-areas III, IV, V, VI and
VII and ICES divisions VIII a, b, d, e and associated conditions
for the control of activities of fishing vessels to be inadmissible;

3. Orders Jégo-Quéré & Cie SA to pay the costs of both sets of

proceedings.

(1) OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.

(1) OJ C 233 of 28.9.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 1 April 2004

in Case C-263/02 P: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Jégo-Quéré & Cie SA (1)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 1 April 2004

(‘Appeal — Admissibility of an action for annulment of a
regulation brought by a legal person’)

in Case C-286/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale de Treviso): Bellio F.lli against Prefettura di
Treviso (1)

(2004/C 106/20)

(Language of the case: French)

(‘Agriculture — Animal health — Protection measures with
regard to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies — Use
of animal proteins in animal feed’)

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

(2004/C 106/21)

In Case C-263/02 P: Commission of the European Commu-
nities (Agents: T. van Rijn and A. Bordes) with an address for
service in Luxembourg – appeal against the judgment of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First
Chamber, Extended Composition) of 3 May 2002 in Case T-
177/01 Jégo-Quéré v Commission [2002] ECR II-2365),
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the
proceedings being: Jégo-Quéré & Cie SA, represented by A.
Creus Carreras and B. Uriarte Valiente, abogados – the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,
J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges;
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 April 2004
in which it:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 May

2002 in Case T-177/01 Jégo-Quéré v Commission;

2. Declares the application for annulment by Jégo-Quéré & Cie SA
of Articles 3(d) and 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No
1162/2001 of 14 June 2001 establishing measures for the

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

In Case C-286/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Tribunale di Treviso (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Bellio F.lli
and Prefettura di Treviso – on the interpretation of Council
Decision 2000/766/EC of 4 December 2000 concerning
certain protection measures with regard to transmissible spon-
giform encephalopathies and the feeding of animal protein (OJ
2000 L 306, p. 32) and Commission Decision 2001/9/EC of
29 December 2000 concerning control measures required for
the implementation of Decision 2000/766 (OJ 2001 L 2, p.
(Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas
32) – the Court
(Rapporteur), President of
the Chamber, R. Schintgen and
N. Colneric,
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; L.
Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 1 April 2004, in which it has ruled:

C 106/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

1. The

first

indent

of Article 2(2)

of Council Decision
2000/766/EC of 4 December 2000 concerning certain protection
measures with regard to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies
and the feeding of animal protein, and Article 1(1) of Commis-
sion Decision 2001/9/EC of 29 December 2000 concerning
the implementation of Decision
control measures required for
2000/766, together with the other Community rules on which
those provisions are based, must be interpreted as meaning that
the presence, even accidental, of unauthorised substances in fish
flour used in the production of feedingstuffs intended for animals
other than ruminants is not permitted and that they allow traders
no level of tolerance. The destruction of consignments of contami-
nated flour is a preventive measure provided for by Article 3(1) of
Decision 2000/766.

2. Article 13 of the European Economic Area Agreement of 2 May
1992 must be interpreted as meaning that Decisions 2000/766
and 2001/9 are not incompatible therewith.

(Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 1 April 2004,
the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Article 26a of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17
May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added
tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive
94/5/EC of 14 February 1994, must be interpreted as meaning
that live animals may be considered to be second-hand goods
within the meaning of that provision .

2. Thus an animal bought from a private individual (other than the
breeder) which is sold on after training for a specific use may be
considered to be second-hand goods within the meaning of that
provision.

(1) OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002

(1) OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 1 April 2004

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 1 April 2004

in Case C-320/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Regeringsrätten): Förvaltnings AB Stenholmen v Rikss-
katteverket (1)

(‘Sixth VAT Directive — Article 26a — Special arrange-
ments applicable to second-hand goods — The term “second-
hand goods” — Horse sold on after training’)

in Case C-389/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Finanzgericht Hamburg): Deutsche See-Bestattungs-
Genossenschaft eG v Hauptzollamt Kiel (1)

(‘Excise duties — Exemption from tax on mineral oils —
Directive 92/81/EEC — Article 8(1)(c) — The term “naviga-
tion”’)

(2004/C 106/22)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

(2004/C 106/23)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-320/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Regeringsrätten (Sweden) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Förvalt-
nings AB Stenholmen v Riksskatteverket on the interpreta-
tion of Article 26a of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value
added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1),
as amended by Council Directive 94/5/EC of 14 February 1994
(OJ 1994 L 60, p. 16) – the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
of: P. Jann, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber, A. Rosas

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

In Case C-389/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Finanzgericht (Finance Court) Hamburg (Germany) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between Deutsche See-Bestattungs-Genossenschaft eG, and
Hauptzollamt Kiel – on the interpretation of Article 8(1)(c) of
Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the
harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils
(OJ 1992 L 316, p. 12) – the Court (First Chamber), composed
of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, A. La Pergola,
R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur) and K. Lenaerts, Judges; M.
Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
given a judgment on 1 April 2004, in which it ruled: