Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  20 October 2005  in Case C-511/03: reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Staat der Nederlanden (Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij) v Ten Kate Holding Musselkanaal BV and Others (Human and animal health — Protection against bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease) — Feeding of ruminants with proteins derived from species other than ruminants — Liability of a Member State for damage caused to individuals by breaches of Community law for which it may be held responsible — Applicable law — Obligation to bring an action against the Commission for failure to act)
Date: 2005-12-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, animal disease, animal nutrition, animal protein, interpretation of the law

10.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/5

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 20 October 2005

in Case C-511/03: reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Staat der Nederlanden
(Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij) v
Ten Kate Holding Musselkanaal BV and Others (1)

(Human and animal health — Protection against bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease) — Feeding of
ruminants with proteins derived from species other than
ruminants — Liability of a Member State for damage caused
to individuals by breaches of Community law for which it
may be held responsible — Applicable law — Obligation to
bring an action against the Commission for failure to act)

(2005/C 315/08)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

In Case C-511/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme
Court of the Netherlands), made by decision of 5 December
2003, received at the Court on 8 December 2003,
in the
proceedings between Staat der Nederlanden (Ministerie van
and Ten Kate
Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij)
Holding Musselkanaal BV, Ten Kate Europrodukten BV,
Ten Kate Produktie Maatschappij BV — the Court (Third
Chamber), composed of A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the
Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó
Caoimh, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M. Ferreira,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
20 October 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Community law does not impose any obligation on a Member
State to bring an action for annulment, pursuant
to Article
230 EC, or for failure to act, pursuant to Article 232 EC, for the
benefit of one of its citizens. Community law does not, however, in
principle preclude national law from containing such an obligation
or providing for liability to be imposed on the Member State for
not having acted in such a way.

2. Article 1(2) of Commission Decision 94/381/EC of 27 June
1994 concerning certain protection measures with regard to
bovine spongiform encephalopathy and the feeding of mammalian
derived protein, read in conjunction with Article 17 of Council
Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary
and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in
certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of
the internal market and with Article 17 of Council Directive
89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks
in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the
internal market, must be construed as meaning that, if the mate-
rial available to the Commission does not enable it to establish
that the controls carried out within the framework of a system
which makes it possible to distinguish between animal protein of

ruminant origin and that of non-ruminant origin, submitted for
its appraisal by a Member State with a view to obtaining authori-
sation, offer adequate guarantees in regard to the protection of
public health, and if the matter has been referred to the Standing
Veterinary Committee at the request of a Member State but that
Committee has not taken a position, particularly by reason of new
information altering the perception of the risk to public health, the
Commission is not obliged to submit to the Council a proposal
relating to the measures to be taken.

(1) OJ C 59 of 06.03.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 20 October 2005

in Case C-6/04: Commission of the European Communities
v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fufil obligations — Directive
92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Wild
fauna and flora)

(2005/C 315/09)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-6/04, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: M. van Beek and L. Flynn) v United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: C. Jackson, assisted by K.
Smith, Barrister) — Action under Article 226 EC for failure to
fulfil obligations, brought on 9 January 2004 — the Court
(Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, Presi-
dent of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, R. Silva de Lapuerta, G.
Arestis and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar,
gave a judgment on 20 October 2005, in which it:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all
the measures necessary in order to implement completely and
correctly the requirements of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21
May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild
fauna and flora, and in particular of:

— Article 6(2), as regards Gibraltar,

— Article 6(3) and (4), as regards water abstraction plans and

projects and land use plans,