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 (Failure of a Member State to fufil obligations — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Wild fauna and flora)
Date: 2005-12-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental protection, town and country planning

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,

C 315/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.12.2005

— Article 11,

— Article 12(1)(d), as regards Gibraltar,

gues and E. Levits, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General, R.
Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 October 2005, the
operative part of which is as follows:

— Article 12(2),

— Article 12(4),

— Article 13(1),

— Article 14(2),

— Article 15,

— Article 16,

— the whole of Directive 92/43 beyond its territorial waters,

the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders

the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 59, 06.03.2004.

On a proper construction of Article 16(1)(a) of the Convention of 27
September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in
Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9
October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland
and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by
the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic
Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession
of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, that Article
does not apply to a club membership contract which, in return for a
membership fee which represents the major part of the total price,
allows members to acquire a right
to use on a time-share basis
immoveable property of a specified type in a specified location and
provides for the affiliation of members to a service which enables them
to exchange their right of use.

(1) OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 15 September 2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 13 October 2005

in Case C-73/04 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberlandesgericht Hamm): Brigitte and Marcus Klein v
Rhodos Management Ltd (1)

(Brussels Convention — Jurisdiction in proceedings regarding
tenancies of immoveable property — Time-share in immove-
able property)

(2005/C 315/10)

(Language of the case: German)

in Case C-258/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour de travail de Liège in Office national de l'emploi
v Ioannis Ioannidis (1)

(Job-seekers — European citizenship — Principle of non-
discrimination — Article 39 EC — Tideover allowances for
young people seeking their first employment — Grant condi-
tional on completion of secondary education in the Member
State concerned)

(2005/C 315/11)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-73/04, reference for a preliminary ruling under the
Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of
Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction
and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial
matters,
from the Oberlandesgericht Hamm (Germany), by
Decision of 27 January 2004, received at the Court on 17
February 2004, in the proceedings pending before that court
between Brigitte and Marcus Klein and Rhodos Management
Ltd, the Court: (First Chamber) composed of P. Jann, President
of the Chamber, K. Schiemann, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodri-

In Case C-258/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Cour de travail de Liège (Belgium),
made by decision of 7 June 2004, received at the Court on 17
June 2004, in the proceedings between Office national de l'em-
ploi and Ioannis Ioannidis — the Court
(First Chamber),
composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric,
Ilešič and E. Levits,
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), M.
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 September 2005, in which it
ruled: