Case C-129/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven te 's-Gravenhage by order of that court of 17 March 2005 in N.V. Raverco v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
Date: 2005-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: animal product, customs regulations, interpretation of the law, veterinary inspection

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/19

The Commission maintains that:

i) Article 5(1) imposes responsibility upon the employer in
relation to all events adverse to the health and safety of his
workers unless the very special circumstances of Article
5(4) can be invoked.

ii) This is confirmed inter alia by the legislative history of the
Directive and the express rejection of the inclusion of a ‘so
far as is reasonable practicable’ clause by the Community
legislator.

iii) By way of contrast, the UK's legislation (as interpreted by
the national courts) permits an employer to escape respon-
sibility if he can prove that the sacrifice involved in taking
time or trouble,
further measures, whether
would be grossly disproportionate to the risk.

in money,

iv) This ‘balancing test’ is apparently applied by the national
courts in all cases and not only in the exceptional situations
falling within Article 5(4) of the Directive.

v) Further, the assessment of what is ‘reasonably practicable’
permits the incorporation of considerations of the cost (in
financial terms) to the employer, contrary to Article 5(4) of
the Directive as read in light of its 13th recital.

(1) OJ L 183, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven te 's-Gravenhage by order
of that court of 17 March 2005 in N.V. Raverco v Minister
van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

(Case C-129/05)

(2005/C 143/27)

(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 te 's-Gravenhage (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 N.V. Raverco and Minister van Land-
bouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit 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,
even if those interests do not also involve the protection of
an interest that can be located in Member States of the EU?

(1) Council Directive 97/78/EC 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 (EEC) No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying
down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum
residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of
animal origin (OJ L 224, p. 1).