Case C-130/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrative 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
Date: 2005-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: animal product, customs regulations, interpretation of the law, veterinary inspection

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.