Case C-96/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg by order of that court of  23 January 2006  in Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
Date: 2006-04-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: animal welfare, export refund, interpretation of the law, protection of animals, transport of animals

C 96/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.4.2006

Action brought on 14 February 2006 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of
Austria

1. Does Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 (1) constitute an
exclusion, with the consequence that the burden of proof in
respect of the requirements of Article 5(3) of Regulation No
615/98 is on the Principal Customs Office?

(Case C-91/06)

(2006/C 96/09)

(Language of the case: German)

Justice of

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
the Court of
the European Communities on 14
February 2006 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by B. Schima and F. Simonetti, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
tive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of
certain plans and programmes on the environment (1) or by
failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission,
the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil
its obligations
under Article 13(1) of that directive;

2. order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2001/42 into
national law expired on 21 July 2004.

(1) OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Hamburg by order of that court of 23 January 2006 in
Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-
Jonas

(Case C-96/06)

(2006/C 96/10)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Hamburg
(Germany) of 23 January 2006, received at the Court Registry
on 17 February 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-
ings between Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH and Hauptzollamt
Hamburg-Jonas on the following questions:

2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative: In order
to conclude under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98
that the directive has not been complied with, is it necessary
to have proof that there has been an infringement of Direc-
tive 91/628/EEC (2)
in the particular case, or does the
competent authority discharge its burden of proof if it relies
on and provides evidence of circumstances which in an
overall view indicate a material probability that the directive
on the protection of animals during transport has not been
complied with (also) in relation to the export consignment
in question?

3. Irrespective of the answers to questions 1 and 2: May the
competent authority refuse to pay (all of) the export refund
to the exporter under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98
where there are no indications that the (potential) infringe-
ment of Directive 91/628/EEC has in fact been deleterious
to the wellbeing of the animals during transport in relation
to the export consignment in question?

(1) OJ L 82 of 19.3.1998, p. 19.
(2) OJ L 240 of 11.12.1991, p. 17.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-
gerichts Stuttgart by order of that court of 7 February
2006 in Raiffeisenbank Mutlangen eG v Roland Schabel,
other
Landgericht
Unkel (Regional Court, Unkel), 2. District Auditor Stiglmair

President

parties:

the

of

1.

(Case C-99/06)

(2006/C 96/11)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Oberlandesgerichts Stuttgart
of 7 February 2006, received at the Court Registry on 21
February 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between Raiffeisenbank Mutlangen eG and Roland Schabel,
other
Landgericht
President
Unkel (Regional Court, Unkel), 2. District Auditor Stiglmair on
the following question:

parties:

the

of

1.