Case C-133/05: Action brought on 21 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria
Date: 2005-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, discrimination based on disability, equal treatment, labour law

C 143/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.6.2005

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administra-
tive Court for Trade and Industry by order of that court
of 17 March 2005 in Coxon and Chatterton Limited v
Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality

even if those interests do not also involve the protection of
an interest that can be located in Member States of the EU?

(Case C-130/05)

(2005/C 143/28)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Administrative Court for
Trade and Industry (Netherlands) of 17 March 2005, received
at the Court Registry on 21 March 2005, for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings between Coxon and Chatterton
Limited and Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality
on the following questions:

1. Must the introduction to and subparagraph (a) of Article
17(2) of Directive 97/78/EC (1) be so interpreted that the
objection to the redispatch of a consignment that does not
satisfy the import conditions lies in the non-satisfaction of
the Community conditions for import or in the conditions
that apply at the destination outside the territories listed in
Annex I
to Directive 97/78/EC agreed with the person
responsible for the load?

2. Must the introduction to and subparagraph (a) of Article
17(2) of Directive 97/78/EC, read in conjunction with
Article 22(2) of Directive 97/78/EC and Article 5 of Regu-
lation 2377/90/EEC (2), be so interpreted that in all cases in
which any one of the checks provided for in Directive
97/78/EC indicates that a consignment of products is likely
to constitute a danger to animal or human health this provi-
sion imperatively requires the destruction of the consign-
ments of animal products concerned?

3. Must Article 22 of Directive 97/78/EC, in conjunction with
Article 5 of Regulation 2377/90/EEC, be so interpreted that
the mere fact that residues of a substance listed in Annex V
to Regulation 2377/90/EC are found in a consignment
means that the consignment in question is likely to consti-
tute such a danger to animal or human health as to preclude
redispatch?

4 If the second question is answered in the negative, must
Article 17(2) of Directive 97/78/EC be so interpreted that it
also serves to protect the interests of the third country into
which, after redispatch, the consignment is to be imported,

(1) Council Directive of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles
governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products
entering the Community from third countries (OJ 1997 L 24 , p. 9).
(2) Council Regulation of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community
procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veter-
inary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (OJ L 224,
p. 1).

Action brought on 21 March 2005 by the Commission of
the Republic of
the European Communities against

Austria

(Case C-133/05)

(2005/C 143/29)

(Language of the case: German)

Justice of

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
the Court of
the European Communities on 21
March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by D. Martin, acting as Agent, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the
Court should:

treatment

in employment and occupation, at

1. declare that, by failing to adopt by 2 December 2003 all/the
laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27
November 2000 (1) establishing a general
framework for
equal
the
federal level as regards the provisions on discrimination on
the grounds of disability, and at the regional level — with
the exception of the regions of Vienna and Lower Austria
— as regards all provisions of the directive, or in any event
by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the
Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 18 of that directive.

2. order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/21

Pleas in law and main arguments

5. by requiring traders visibly to display a table setting out

all the services which can be supplied to clients;

The Republic of Austria has failed to adopt the measures neces-
sary to implement the Directive at federal level in relation to
the provisions concerning discrimination on the grounds of
disability, and has altogether failed, with the exception of the
regions of Vienna and Lower Austria, to adopt the measures
necessary to implement the directive at regional level or, in any
event, has failed to communicate them to the Commission.

(1) OJ L 303, 02.12.2000, p. 16.

6. by providing that the local police authority (Questore)
may make the licence subject to further restrictions;

7. by restricting the freedom of traders to set prices;

8. by declaring that

the business of credit recovery is
incompatible with the banking and credit services which
are the subject of Legislative Decree No 385/93;

the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty;

Action brought on 22 March 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Italian Republic

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(Case C-134/05)

Pleas in law and main arguments

(2005/C 143/30)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 March
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by E. Traversa, member of
the Commission's Legal
Service.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that:

1. by subjecting the business of extrajudicial credit recovery
to a licence issued by the local police authority
(Questore);

2. by limiting the validity of the licence to the province in

which it was issued;

1. The obligation to obtain a licence from the police authority
is incompatible with Article 49 of the Treaty in that it
applies without distinction to all suppliers established in
another Member State, without regard to whether those
suppliers have complied with the rules for the protection of
the public interest in their country of origin.

2. Italy is currently divided into 103 provinces. That means
that a Community trader who wants to set up business in
Italy and extend his business throughout a substantial part
of Italy must make as many applications for a licence as
there are provinces making up the area he wishes to cover
and a total of 103 applications if he wishes to set up and
carry on business in the whole of Italy.

3. A company which wishes to set up in Italy and operate in a
certain area not only has to obtain several licences but also
has to acquire as many premises as he has licences and as
provinces are covered. That obligation is clearly dispropor-
tionate, given the cost to the operators, as well as not being
indispensable to the carrying on of the business. Further-
more, the obligation to have premises amounts to a require-
ment that a person who provides cross-border services must
become established in the recipient Member State.

3. by tying the carrying on of the business of extrajudicial
in the
recovery to specific premises set out

credit
licence;

4. by making the carrying on of that business in a province
for which the operator does not have a licence subject
to contract of agency with an authorised representative;

4. A trader who lawfully carries on business must be able to
operate throughout Italy without having to enter into a
contract of agency with an intermediary where that operator
wishes to operate outside the province for which he has
obtained a licence. Indeed since that intermediary works in
the same sector he is a potential competitor of the principal
and furthermore the appointment of an intermediary costs
the principal time and money.