Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of  6 December 2005  in Joined Cases C-453/03, C-11/04, C-12/04 and C-194/04; reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court): The Queen, on the application of: ABNA Ltd, Denis Brinicombe, BOCM Pauls Ltd, Devenish Nutrition Ltd, Nutrition Services (International) Ltd, Primary Diets Ltd v Secretary of State for Health, Food Standards Agency (C-453/03); references from the Consiglio di Stato: Fratelli Martini & C. SpA, Cargill Srl, v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Ministero della Salute, Ministero delle Attività Produttive (C-11/04) and Ferrari Mangimi Srl, Associazione nazionale tra i produttori di alimenti zootecnici (Assalzoo) v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Ministero della Salute, Ministero delle Attività Produttive (C-12/04); reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage: Nederlandse Vereniging Diervoederindustrie (Nevedi) v Productschap Diervoeder (C-194/04) (Animal health and public health requirements — Composite feedingstuffs for animals — Indication of the exact percentage of the components of a product — Infringement of the principle of proportionality)
Date: 2006-02-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: animal nutrition, consumer information, interpretation of the law, labelling, manufactured feedingstuffs, marketing, principle of proportionality

C 36/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.2.2006

As Community law now stands, Articles 43 EC and 48 EC do not
preclude provisions of a Member State which generally prevent a resi-
dent parent company from deducting from its taxable profits losses
incurred in another Member State by a subsidiary established in that
Member State although they allow it to deduct losses incurred by a
resident subsidiary. However, it is contrary to Articles 43 EC and 48
EC to prevent the resident parent company from doing so where the
non-resident subsidiary has exhausted the possibilities available in its
State of residence of having the losses taken into account for the
accounting period concerned by the claim for relief and also for
previous accounting periods and where there are no possibilities for
those losses to be taken into account in its State of residence for future
periods either by the subsidiary itself or by a third party, in particular
where the subsidiary has been sold to that third party.

(1) OJ C 304, 13.12.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 6 December 2005

in Joined Cases C-453/03, C-11/04, C-12/04 and C-194/04;
reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of
Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division
(Administrative Court): The Queen, on the application of:
ABNA Ltd, Denis Brinicombe, BOCM Pauls Ltd, Devenish
Nutrition Ltd, Nutrition Services
(International) Ltd,
Primary Diets Ltd v Secretary of State for Health, Food
Standards Agency (C-453/03); references from the Consi-
glio di Stato: Fratelli Martini & C. SpA, Cargill Srl, v Minis-
tero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Ministero della
Salute, Ministero delle Attività Produttive (C-11/04) and
Ferrari Mangimi Srl, Associazione nazionale tra i produt-
tori di alimenti zootecnici (Assalzoo) v Ministero delle
Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Ministero della Salute, Minis-
tero delle Attività Produttive (C-12/04); reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage:
Nederlandse Vereniging Diervoederindustrie (Nevedi) v
Productschap Diervoeder (C-194/04) (1)

(Animal health and public health requirements — Composite
feedingstuffs for animals — Indication of the exact percen-
tage of the components of a product — Infringement of the
principle of proportionality)

(2006/C 36/10)

(Languages of the cases: English, Italian and Dutch)

brought by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales,
Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
(United
Kingdom) (C-453/03), by the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) (C-11/04
and C-12/04) and by the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage (Nether-
lands)
(C-194/04), by decisions of 23 October 2003, 11
November 2003 and 22 April 2004, received by the Court on
27 October 2003, 15 January 2004 and 26 April 2004 respec-
tively, in the proceedings The Queen, on the application of:
ABNA Ltd, Denis Brinicombe, BOCM Pauls Ltd, Devenish
Nutrition Ltd, Nutrition Services
(International) Ltd,
Primary Diets Ltd v Secretary of State for Health, Food
Standards Agency, (C-453/03); Fratelli Martini & C. SpA,
Cargill Srl, v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali,
Ministero della Salute, Ministero delle Attività Produttive
(C-11/04); Ferrari Mangimi Srl, Associazione nazionale tra i
produttori di alimenti zootecnici (Assalzoo) v Ministero
delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Ministero della Salute,
Ministero delle Attività Produttive (C-12/04); and Neder-
landse Vereniging Diervoederindustrie
v
Productschap Diervoeder (C-194/04) — the Court (Grand
Chamber) composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A.
Timmermans and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Presidents of Cham-
bers, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, R. Silva
de Lapuerta, P. Kūris, E. Juhász, G. Arestis, A. Borg Barthet and
M. Ilešič, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet,
Principal Administrator, and K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the
Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 December 2005, the operative
part of which is as follows:

(Nevedi),

1. Examination of heading (a) of the question referred in Case C-
453/03, of Question 1 in Cases C-11/04 and C-12/04, and of
Question 1(a) in Case C-194/04 has not revealed any factor
capable of supporting the conclusion that Article 1(1)(b) and 1(4)
of Directive 2002/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 28 January 2002 amending Council Directive
79/373/EEC on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs and
repealing Commission Directive 91/357/EEC was not validly
adopted on the basis of Article 152(4)(b) EC.

2. Examination of Question 4 in Case C-12/04 has not revealed
any factor capable of affecting the validity of Article 1(1)(b) and
1(4) of Directive 2002/2 in the light of the principle of equal
treatment and non-discrimination.

3. Article 1(1)(b) of Directive 2002/2, which requires manufacturers
of compound animal
feedingstuffs to indicate, at a customer's
request, the exact composition of a feedingstuff, is invalid in the
light of the principle of proportionality. By contrast, examination
of heading (c) of the question referred in Case C-453/03, of Ques-
tion 2 in Cases C-11/04 and C-12/04, and Question 1(c) in
Case C-194/04 has not revealed any factor capable of affecting
the validity of Article 1(4) of Directive 2002/2 in the light of
that principle.

In Joined Cases C-453/03, C-11/04, C-12/04 and C-194/04:
for preliminary rulings under Article 234 EC,
References

4. Directive 2002/2 must be interpreted as meaning that its applica-
tion is not contingent on the adoption of the positive list of feed
materials designated by their specific names referred to in recital
(10) in the preamble to that directive.

11.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/7

5. Even in the case in which a court of a Member State forms the
view that the conditions have been satisfied under which it may
suspend application of a Community measure, in particular where
the validity of that measure has already been
the question of
referred to the Court, the competent national administrative autho-
rities of the other Member States cannot suspend application of
that measure until such time as the Court has ruled on its validity.
National courts alone are entitled to determine, taking into consid-
eration the specific circumstances of the cases brought before them,
whether the conditions governing the grant of interim relief have
been satisfied.

(1) OJ C 7, 10.01.2004.

OJ C 59, 06.03.2004.
OJ C 179, 10.07.2004.

1. The third paragraph of Article 234 EC requires a court or tribunal
of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial
remedy under national
law to seek a ruling from the Court of
Justice on a question relating to the validity of the provisions of a
regulation even where the Court has already declared invalid analo-
gous provisions of another comparable regulation;

2. Paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 4 of Commission Regulation
(EC) No 1423/95 of 23 June 1995 laying down detailed imple-
menting rules for the import of products in the sugar sector other
than molasses are invalid inasmuch as they provide that the addi-
tional duty referred to therein is, as a general rule, established on
the basis of the representative price referred to in Article 1(2) of
that regulation and that that duty is established on the basis of
the cif import price of the shipment concerned only if the importer
so requests.

(1) OJ C 7, 10.01.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 6 December 2005

in Case C-461/03: reference for a preliminary ruling from
the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven Gaston
Schul Douane-expediteur BV v Minister van Landbouw,
Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (1)

(Article 234 EC — Obligation on a national court to seek a
preliminary ruling — Invalidity of a provision of Community
law — Sugar — Additional import duty — Regulation (EC)
No 1423/95 — Article 4)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 24 November 2005

in Case C-506/03: Federal Republic of Germany v Commis-
sion of the European Communities (1)

(Subsidies — Feasibility study — Contract for the assign-
ment of intellectual property rights)

(2006/C 36/11)

(2006/C 36/12)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case C-461/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijf-
sleven (Netherlands), made by decision of 24 October 2003,
received at the Court on 4 November 2003, in the proceedings
between Gaston Schul Douane-expediteur BV and Minister
van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit — the Court
(Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann,
C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas and J. Malenovský, Presidents of
Chambers, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts, G. Arestis, A. Borg
Barthet and M. Ilešič, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
General, R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 December
2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

In Case C-506/03 Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: M.
Lumma, assisted by C. von Donat, Rechtsanwalt) v Commis-
sion of the European Communities (Agents: G. Zavvos and
C. Schmidt, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, Rechtsanwalt) — action
for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 26 November
2003 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts,
Acting President of the Fourth Chamber, M. Ilešič and E. Levits
(Rapporteur),
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
General; K. Sztranc, Administrator for the Registrar, gave a
judgment on 24 November 2005, in which it:

1. Dismisses the action;