Case C-18/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Jönköping (Sweden) lodged on 22 January 2007 — Mattias Jalkhed v Jordbruksverket
Date: 2007-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bird, domestic animal, import restriction, interpretation of the law, leisure, technical standard, wildlife

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/23

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten
lodged on 22 January 2007 —
i

Jönköping (Sweden)

Action brought on 23 January 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Ireland

Mattias Jalkhed v Jordbruksverket

(Case C-18/07)

(2007/C 56/42)

Language of the case: Swedish

(Case C-20/07)

(2007/C 56/43)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Kammarrätten i Jönköping

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mattias Jalkhed

Defendant: Jordbruksverket

Questions referred

1. Does a national provision prohibiting the holding of wild
birds as domestic animals or in the pursuit of a hobby
constitute a quantitative restriction on imports or a measure
having equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 28 of
the EC Treaty, if the provision in question means that it is
not permitted to import such a bird into the Member State
in question from another Member State?

2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: Can
the national provision in question be regarded, despite that,
as being compatible with Community law, with reference to
the fact that the reason for the provision, according to the
competent national authority, is the difficulty of accommo-
dating the wild birds' natural behaviour in captivity (that is
to say, the birds' social behaviour, hunting behaviour and
need for freedom of movement) and their lack of domestica-
tion, which causes fear and undesirable stress in handling?

(a) What is the potential significance of the fact that the
national provision in question has been notified to the
Commission as a draft technical regulation pursuant to
Directive 98/34/EC (1) (amended by Directive 98/48/EC)
and has not been the subject of any objection from the
the
Commission (on a comparison with, primarily,
second paragraph of Article 8(5) of that directive)?

(b) What is the potential significance of the fact that there is
no harmonisation at a Community level with regard to
the import and holding of, inter alia, wild birds such as
those in question in the case (contrary to the situation
under the rules which was at issue in the judgment of
the Court of
Justice in Case C 162/97 Nilsson [and
Others])?

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Hottiaux and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2004/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 21 April 2004 amending Directive 97/68/EC on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate
pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed
in non-road mobile machinery (1) or, in any event, by failing
to notify such provisions to the Commission, Ireland has
failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 3 of that Directive.

— order Ireland to pay the costs of this Application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 20 May 2005.

(1) OJ L 146, p.1.

Action brought on 23 January 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-21/07)

(2007/C 56/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

(1) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37.

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Hottiaux and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

Defendant: Ireland