Case C-138/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by order of that court of 22 March 2005 in Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit(intervener: LTO Nederland)
Date: 2005-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, market approval, plant health control, plant health legislation, plant health product

C 143/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.6.2005

5. The obligation visibly to display the table of services in the
premises presupposes that the trader necessarily disposes of
premises from which to operate. According to the Court's
settled case-law, the obligation to dispose of premises in the
recipient Member State amounts to a requirement that the
trader who supplies cross-border services be established in
the recipient Member State.

6. The residual power of each provincial police authority
(Questore) to make the licence for the business of credit
recovery subject
requirements’
infringes the requirements of transparency and objectivity
which the Court's case-law stipulates, even where the power
of the Questore is circumscribed by the law and by the
objective pursued.

to ill defined ‘additional

bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) of 22 March 2005, received at the
Court Registry on 25 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings between Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufeder-
atie and Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
(intervener: LTO Nederland) on the following questions:

1. May Article 8 of the Plant Protection Products Directive (1)
be applied by the national court after the period referred to
in Article 23 thereof has expired?

2. Must Article 16 of the Biocidal Product Directive (2) be inter-
preted as having the same meaning as Article 8(2) of the
Plant Protection Products Directive?

7. The restrictions on the freedom to set prices constitute an
obstacle both to the freedom of establishment and the
freedom to provide services. A new trader who attempts to
enter a given market must be able to compete with traders
already operating in that market and the price of
the
services is a factor of primary importance in acquiring
customers.

3. Must Article 8(2) of the Plant Protection Products Directive
be interpreted as a standstill obligation in the sense that a
Member State has the power to alter the existing system or
practice only in so far as this results in an assessment in
connection with the authorisation of plant protection
products which is consistent with this directive?

8. The incompatibility of the Italian rules with the carrying on
of banking and credit services results in a prohibition on the
suppliers of banking and credit services from other Member
States from carrying on the business of credit recovery in
Italy, pursuant either to the freedom of establishment or the
freedom to provide services guaranteed by the Treaty.

4. If the answer to Question 3 is in the negative:

Does Article 8(2) of the Plant Protection Products Directive
impose limits on amendments to national rules concerning
the placing on the market of biocidal products, and if so
what limits?

5. If the answer to Question 4 is in the negative:

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by order of that court of 22
March 2005 in Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie v
Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit(inter-
vener: LTO Nederland)

By what criteria is it necessary to assess whether there are
measures liable seriously to compromise achievement of the
result prescribed by the directive?

6. If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative:

(Case C-138/05)

(2005/C 143/31)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(a) Must Article 8(2) of the Plant Protection Products Direc-
tive be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member
State authorises the placing on the market in its territory
of
active
substances not listed in Annex I to that directive that
were already on the market two years after the date of
notification of that directive, regard must also be had to
the provisions of Article 4 thereof?

containing

protection

products

plant

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the College van Beroep voor het

(b) Must Article 8(2) of the Plant Protection Products Direc-
tive also be interpreted as meaning that, where a
Member State authorises the placing on the market in
its territory of plant protection products containing
active substances not listed in Annex I to that directive

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/23

that were already on the market two years after the date
of notification of that directive, regard must also be had
to the provisions of Article 8(3) thereof?

7. Must Article 8(3) of the Plant Protection Products Directive
be interpreted as meaning that an examination of an new
application of a plant protection product already on the
market, whereby it is considered whether there are unaccep-
table risks to the operator/worker, human health and the
environment in connection with a temporary measure as
referred to in Article 16aa of the Law on Pesticides, is to be
regarded as a review within the meaning of Article 8(3)
thereof?

8. Must Article 8(3) of the Plant Protection Products Directive
be interpreted as meaning that it contains only rules relating
to the provision of data before a review or must it be
construed as meaning that the requirements set out therein
are also relevant to the way in which a review must be orga-
nised and carried out?

(1) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the
placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ L 230,
19/08/1991 p. 1)

(2) Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on
the market (OJ L 123, 24/04/1998 p. 1)

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger
Finanzsenat by order of that court of 17 March 2005 in
the proceedings between Amalia Valesko and Zollamt
Klagenfurt

(Case C-140/05)

(2005/C 143/32)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat
(Austria) of 17 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on
29 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between Amalia Valesko and Zollamt Klagenfurt on the
following questions:

Question 1:

of 23.9.2003, L 236), which state that, without prejudice to
Article 8 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC on the general
arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the
holding, movement and monitoring of such products, and
having informed the Commission, Member States may, as long
as the derogation from Article 2(1) of Directive 92/79/EEC —
as last amended — applies,
‘maintain’ the same quantitative
limits for cigarettes which may be brought into their territories
from Slovenia without further excise duty payment as those
applied with regard to cigarette imports from third countries,
do they — in the light of the technical term ‘maintain’ —
permit quantitative limits which applied in a Member State in
respect of imports from inter alia the Republic of Slovenia as a
third country until the accession of that country?

Question 2:

If the Court of Justice concludes that the Treaty provisions in
question are not in fact to be construed as permitting quantita-
tive limits which applied in a Member State in respect of
imports from inter alia the Republic of Slovenia as a third
country until the accession of that country:

On a proper construction of Articles 23, 25 and 26 of the EC
Treaty, do the rules of a Member State, under which the
exemption from excise duty applicable to tobacco products
imported in the personal luggage of travellers who are normally
resident in the tax territory of that Member State and enter that
territory directly via a land border or inland waters is limited to
25 cigarettes on entry from certain other Member States,
comply with the principles of the free movement of goods
where a quantitative limit of that kind exists only in respect of
a customs exclave in a single third country (Switzerland) whilst
from any other third country importation of 200 cigarettes free
of excise duty into that Member State is allowed?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Luleå tingsrätt
by order of that court of 21 March 2005 in Åklagaren v
Percy Mickelsson and Joakim Roos

(Case C-142/05)

(2005/C 143/33)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

On a proper construction of the provisions contained in the
... the Republic of
Documents concerning the accession of
Slovenia ... to the European Union, Annex XIII: List referred to
in Article 24 of the Act of Accession: Slovenia; Heading 6.
Taxation, paragraph 2 (Official Journal of the European Union

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by decision of the Luleå tingsrätt (Sweden)
of 21 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 24 March
2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between
Åklagaren and Percy Mickelsson and Joakim Roos on the
following questions: