Case C-28/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and Industry) by order of that court of 18 January 2005 in G.J. Dokter, Maatschap Van den Top and W. Boekhout v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
Date: 2005-04-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, directory, foot-and-mouth disease, interpretation of the law, medical diagnosis, research body, veterinary legislation

C 93/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.4.2005

Pleas in law and main arguments

— whether it

is further compatible with Council Directive

83/189/EEC (2) and Council Directive 88/182/EEC (3).

The amount referred to in the application represents the duty
that the Danish customs authorities omitted to collect in the
period 1994-1997 from an undertaking wrongly permitted by
the said authorities to import certain goods at zero rate. That
permission was given as concerning goods intended for incor-
poration in or for fitting to or equipping ships, boats or other
vessels
in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No
2658/87 (2) of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomen-
clature and on the Common Customs Tariff, Annex 1, Section
II. The goods were, however, intended for the manufacture of
containers and could not, as was later acknowledged by the
Danish authorities, be covered by the said provision.

The Danish authorities have unlawfully failed to make the said
amount available to the Commission as own resources. The
claims made in this connection correspond to those made by
the Commission in its application against Denmark in Case C-
392/02 (3).

(1) OJ L 293 of 12.11.1994, p. 9.
(2) OJ L 256 of 7.09.1987, p.1.
(3) OJ C 31 of 8.02.2003, p. 4.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
Civile e Penale di Forlì by order of that court of 14
December 2004 in the criminal proceedings against K.J.W.
Schwibbert

(Case C-20/05)

(2005/C 93/11)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Italy) of 14 December 2004, received at

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Tribunale Civile e Penale di
Forlì
the Court
Registry on 21 January 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the
criminal proceedings pending against K.J.W. Schwibbert on the
following questions:

(1) OJ 1992 L 346 of 27.11.1992, p. 61.
(2) OJ 1983 L 109 of 26.04.1983, p. 8.
(3) OJ 1988 L 81 of 26.03.1988, p. 75.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for
Trade and Industry) by order of that court of 18 January
2005 in G.J. Dokter, Maatschap Van den Top and
W. Boekhout v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voed-
selkwaliteit

(Case C-28/05)

(2005/C 93/12)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the College van Beroep voor het
bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and Industry) (the
Netherlands) of 18 January 2005, received at the Court Registry
on 28 January 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-
ings between G.J. Dokter, Maatschap Van den Top and W.
Boekhout and Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwa-
liteit (Minister for Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality) on the
following questions:

1. Does the obligation on Member States under the first indent
of Article 11(1) of Directive 85/511/EEC, (1)
read in
conjunction with the second indent of Article 13(1) thereof,
to ensure that laboratory testing to detect the presence of
FMD is carried out by a laboratory listed in Annex B to
Directive 85/511/EEC have direct effect?

2.

(a) Must Article 11(1) of Directive 85/511/EEC be inter-
preted as meaning that
legal consequences must be
attached to the fact that the presence of FMD is found
by a laboratory which is not listed in Annex B to Direc-
tive 85/511/EEC?

(b) If the answer to Question 2a is in the affirmative:

— whether the affixing of the distinctive sign SIAE [società
italiana degli autori ed editori] is compatible with Council
Directive 92/100/EEC (1) on rental right and lending right
and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of
intellectual property, and Articles 3 EC and 23 EC to 27
EC;

Is the purpose of Article 11(1) of Directive 85/511/EEC
to protect the interests of individuals, such as the appel-
lants in the main proceedings? If not, can individuals,
such as the appellants in the main proceedings, plead
possible failure to fulfil the obligations which this provi-
sion places on the authorities of the Member States?

16.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/7

(c) If the answer to Question 2b means that individuals can

rely on Article 11(1) of Directive 85/511/EEC:

What legal consequences must be attached to a finding
of the presence of FMD by a laboratory which is not
listed in Annex B to Directive 85/511/EEC?

3. Must Annex B to Directive 85/511/EEC be interpreted,
having regard to Articles 11 and 13 thereof, as meaning
that the mention in Annex B to Directive 85/511/EEC of
‘Centraal Diergeneeskundig Instituut, Lelystad’ can or must
refer also to ID-Lelystad B.V.?

4. If it follows from the above answers that the presence of
FMD can be found by a laboratory which is not listed in
Annex B to Directive 85/511/EEC or that Annex B to Direc-
tive 85/511/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the
mention of
Instituut,
Lelystad’ can or must refer also to ID-Lelystad B.V.:

‘Centraal Diergeneeskundig

the

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by decision of that court of
26 January 2005 in the case of Maatschap J. and G.P. and
A.C. Schouten v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voed-
selkwaliteit

(Case C-34/05)

(2005/C 93/13)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Must Directive 85/511/EEC be interpreted as providing that
the national administrative authority authorised to adopt
decisions is bound by the outcome of an examination by a
laboratory which is
listed in Annex B to Directive
85/551/EEC or – if the answer to Question 2a means that
the administrative authority may base its FMD control
measures also on results obtained by a laboratory which is
not listed in Annex B to Directive 85/511/EEC – by the
results of the latter laboratory, or does the determination of
final authority in that regard fall within the procedural
autonomy of the Member State and must the court before
which the main proceedings are pending examine whether
the rules in that respect apply irrespective of whether the
laboratory examination is carried out by virtue of a Com-
munity or national legal obligation and of whether or not
the application of the provisions of national procedural law
renders the implementation of the Community rules extre-
mely difficult or practically impossible?

5. If the answer to Question 4 means that the issue of whether
national authorities are bound by the laboratory result is
governed by Directive 85/511/EEC:

Are the national authorities bound unconditionally by the
result of an FMD examination carried out by a laboratory? If
not, what margin of discretion does Directive 85/511/EEC
leave these national authorities?

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by decision of the College van Beroep voor
het Bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and Industry)
(Netherlands) of 26 January 2005,
the Court
Registry on 31 January 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings between Maatschap J. and G.P. and A.C. Schouten
and Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit on the
following questions:

received at

1. Must Article 12(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 (1)
and Article 2(1)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 (2) be
interpreted as meaning that a parcel of land declared as a
forage area may not be regarded as ‘available’ if at any time
in the relevant period that parcel of land has been under
water?

2. If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, are the provisions
referred to above binding with specific regard to the conse-
quences flowing from such reply?

3. If the answer to Question 1 is negative, what are the applic-
able criteria for determining whether a parcel of
land
declared as a forage area which was temporarily under
water can be regarded as ‘available’ for the purposes of
Article 12(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 and
Article 2(1)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92?

(1) Council Directive 85/511/EEC of 18 November 1985 introducing
Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease (OJ
1985 L 315, p. 11).

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 (OJ L 160,

p. 21).

(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992

(OJ L 391, p. 36).