Case C-222/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by order of that court of 17 May 2005 in 1. J. van der Weerd, 2. Maatschap van der Bijl, and 3. J. W. Schoonhoven v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
Date: 2005-08-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: foot-and-mouth disease, health control, health legislation, interpretation of the law, research body

C 193/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.8.2005

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the the Supreme
Court, Ireland, by order of that court of 11 May 2005 in
Sam McCauley Chemists (Blackpool) Ltd and Mark Sadja v
Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, Minister for Health and
Children, Ireland and the Attorney General

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by order of that court of 17
May 2005 in 1. J. van der Weerd, 2. Maatschap van der
Bijl, and 3. J. W. Schoonhoven v Minister van Landbouw,
Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

(Case C-221/05)

(2005/C 193/20)

(Language of the case: English)

(Case C-222/05)

(2005/C 193/21)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the the Supreme Court, Ireland,
of 11 May 2005, received at the Court Registry on 19 May
2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Sam
McCauley Chemists (Blackpool) Ltd and Mark Sadja and Phar-
maceutical Society of Ireland, Minister for Health and Children,
Ireland and the Attorney General on the following question:

Does Article 2 of Council Directive 85/433/EEC of 16
September 1985 concerning the mutual
recognition of
diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifica-
tions in pharmacy, including measures to facilitate the effective
exercise of the right of establishment relating to certain activ-
ities in the field of pharmacy (1)

(a) impose a single obligation limited to requiring a Member
State to recognise the qualifications referred to in Article
2.1 of the Directive except with respect to the establish-
ment of new pharmacies as defined in Article 2.2, or,

(b) does it impose on a Member State a distinct obligation to
recognise the qualifications referred to in Article 2.1 but, in
addition, confer on Member States a discretion whether to
extend such recognition to persons holding such qualifica-
tions with respect to the establishment of new pharmacies
open to the public, as defined in Article 2.2?

(1) OJ L 254, 24.09.1985, p. 37

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the College van Beroep voor het
for Trade and Industry)
bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court
(Netherlands ) of 17 May 2005, received at the Court Registry
on 20 May 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between 1. J. van der Weerd, 2. Maatschap van der Bijl, and 3.
J. W. Schoonhoven and Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en
(Minister for Agriculture, Nature and Food
Voedselkwaliteit
Quality) on the following questions:

1. Does Community law require the courts of

their own
motion to conduct an examination, that is to say an exami-
nation of grounds which are outside the terms of
the
dispute but are based on Directive 85/511/EEC? (1)

2. If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, does the obliga-
tion on Member States under the first indent of Article
11(1) of Directive 85/511/EEC, read in conjunction with the
second indent of Article 13(1) thereof, to ensure that labora-
tory 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?

3.

(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 3(a) is in the affirmative:

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?

6.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/13

(c) If the answer to Question 3(b) means that individuals

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

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by order of that court of 17
May 2005 in H.de Rooy sr, and H.de Rooy, jr v Minister
van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

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?

4. 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.?

5. 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

(Case C-223/05)

(2005/C 193/22)

(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?

6. If the answer to Question 5 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?

(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).

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)
(Netherlands) of 17 May 2005, received at the Court Registry
on 20 May 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
jr and Minister van
between H.de Rooy sr, and H.de Rooy,
Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
for Agri-
(Minister
culture, Nature and Food Quality) on the following questions:

1. Does Community law require the courts of

their own
motion to conduct an examination, that is to say an exami-
nation of grounds which are outside the terms of
the
dispute but are based on Directive 85/511/EEC? (1)

2. If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, does the obliga-
tion on Member States under the first indent of Article
11(1) of Directive 85/511/EEC, read in conjunction with the
second indent of Article 13(1) thereof, to ensure that labora-
tory 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?

3.

(a) Must Article 11(1) of Directive 85/511/EEC be inter-
legal consequences must be
preted as meaning that
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?