Case C-219/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 27 April 2007 — VZW de Nationale Raad van Dierenkwekers en Liefhebbers and VZW Andibel v Belgische Staat
Date: 2007-07-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: animal welfare, export monitoring, interpretation of the law, marketing, protected species, protection of animal life, trade restriction

7.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/13

Parties to the main proceedings

and with

Applicant: Verlag Schawe GmbH

Defendant: Sächsisches Druck- und Verlagshaus AG

Questions referred

1. Do Article 7(1) and (5) and Article 9 of Directive 96/9/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March
1996 on the legal protection of databases (1) prohibit a legal
provision of a Member State, according to which an official
database which is published as a matter of general informa-
tion for official purposes (in this instance: a systematic and
tender documents
complete collection of all calls
emanating from a German Land) does not benefit from sui
generis protection under the directive?

for

2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative: is this also the
case where the database is constructed not by a public body
but by a private undertaking on its behalf, to which all
bodies of this Land issuing calls for tender must directly
submit their calls for tender documents for publication?

(1) OJ 1996 L 77, p. 20.

Directive 2004/50/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 29 April 2004 amending Council Directive
the trans-European
96/48/EC on the interoperability of
high-speed rail system and Directive 2001/16/EC of
the
European Parliament and of the Council on the interoper-
ability of the trans-European conventional rail system (2),

or in any event by not communicating such measures to the
Commission, the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obliga-
tions under those directives;

— order that the Kingdom of the Netherlands pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for
national law expired on 30 April 2006.

transposing those directives into

(1) OJ L 164, 30.4.2004, p. 44.
(2) OJ L 164, 30.4.2004, p. 114.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State
(Belgium) lodged on 27 April 2007 — VZW de Nationale
Raad van Dierenkwekers en Liefhebbers and VZW Andibel
v Belgische Staat

Action brought on 25 April 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-217/07)

(2007/C 155/24)

(Case C-219/07)

(2007/C 155/25)

Language of the case: Dutch

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Parties

Raad van State (Belgium)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: W. Wils and P. Dejmek, acting as Agents)

Applicants: VZW de Nationale Raad van Dierenkwekers en Lief-
hebbers and VZW Andibel

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Form of order sought

Questions referred

— declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community's railways
and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing
of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the
allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying
of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety
certification (1),

1. Must Article 30 of the Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing
the European Community, in itself or in conjunction with
Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 (1) of 9 December 1996
on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regu-
lating trade therein, be interpreted as meaning that a prohibi-
tion on the import of or trade in fauna, imposed in imple-
mentation of Article 3bis(1) of the Law of 4 August 1986
on the protection and welfare of animals (Wet betreffende de
is not justified in
bescherming en het welzijn der dieren),

C 155/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.7.2007

respect of mammals which are imported from another EU
Member State and which come under category B, C or D in
the Regulation or are not referred to in the Regulation,
where those mammals are held in that Member State in
accordance with the legislation of that State and that legisla-
tion complies with the provisions of the Regulation?

2. Does Article 30 EC of

the EC Treaty or Regulation
No 338/97 preclude the adoption by a Member State of
rules which, under existing legislation on animal welfare,
prohibit any commercial use of specimens, save where those
specimens are explicitly referred to in those national rules,
where the objective of the protection of those species, as
referred to in Article 30 EC, can be achieved just as effec-
tively by measures which obstruct intra-Community trade
less?

(1) OJ 1997 L 61, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Supremo (Spain) lodged on 3 May 2007 — UTECA (Unión
de Televisiones Comerciales Asociadas) v Federación de
Asociaciones de Productores Audiovisuales, Ente Público
RTVE y Administración del Estado

(Case C-222/07)

(2007/C 155/26)

Language of the case: Spanish

revenue for the pre-funding of European cinematographic
films and films made for television?

2. If

the reply to the previous question is affirmative,

is a
national measure which, in addition to laying down the pre-
funding obligation referred to above, reserves 60 % of that
compulsory funding for original Spanish-language works
compatible with that directive and with Article 12 EC, taken
in conjunction with the other special provisions to which
that article refers?

3. Does an obligation imposed by a national measure on televi-
sion operators to the effect that the latter must earmark a
percentage of their operating revenue for the pre-funding of
cinematographic films, where 60 % of that amount must be
earmarked specifically for original Spanish-language films the
majority of which are produced by the Spanish film industry,
amount to State aid in favour of that industry within the
meaning of Article 87 EC?

(1) OJ L 298, p. 23.
(2) OJ L 202, p. 60.

Action brought on 4 May 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-224/07)

(2007/C 155/27)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: N. Yerrel and P. Dejmek, Agents)

Applicant: UTECA (Unión
Asociadas)

de

Televisiones

Comerciales

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Defendants: Federación de Asociaciones de Productores Audiovi-
suales, Ente Público RTVE y Administración del Estado

Form of order sought

Questions referred

1. Does Article 3 of Council Directive 89/552/EEC (1) of
3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions
laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in
Member States concerning the pursuit of television broad-
casting activities, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC (2) of
the European Parliament and of
the Council of 30 June
1997, permit Member States to impose on television opera-
tors the obligation to earmark a percentage of their operating

— declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community's railways
and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing
of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the
allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying
of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety
certification (Railway Safety Directive) (1), the Grand Duchy
of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil
its obligations under
Article 33 of that directive;