Case C-428/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court made on 14 September 2007 — The Queen on the application of Mark Horvath v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Date: 2007-12-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, aid system, common agricultural policy, easement, interpretation of the law, territorial jurisdiction

C 297/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.12.2007

Form of order sought

— declare that, by not including, in the works to be awarded
by concession in the concession notice and in the tendering
specifications relating to the award of a public concession
for the construction, maintenance and operation of
the
motorway links to Segovia and Ávila, and for the mainte-
nance and operation of the Villalba-Adanero section of the
same motorway, works which were subsequently awarded,
the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil
its obligations
under Article 3 and Article 11(3), (6), (7), (11) and (12) of
Directive 93/37/EEC (1), and under the principles of
the
EC Treaty, in particular the principle of equality of treatment
and non-discrimination;

— order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of
Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division,
Administrative Court made on 14 September 2007 — The
Queen on the application of Mark Horvath v Secretary of
State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

(Case C-428/07)

(2007/C 297/36)

Language of the case: English

Pleas in law and main arguments

Referring court

the

construction, maintenance and operation of

Under Royal Decree 1724/99 of 5 November the Ministry for
Infrastructure and Transport awarded a public works concession
for
the
following sections of toll motorway: the A-6 toll motorway link
to Segovia, and the A-6 toll motorway link to Ávila, and for the
maintenance and operation from 2018 of the Villalba-Adanero
section of the A-6 toll motorway. In the context of awarding
that concession,
there were awarded many other works of
which notice had not been given, to a value greater than the
total value of the published works, and which were in part
outside the geographical area of the concession.

First, the Commission claims that the Kingdom of Spain has
infringed Article 3 of Directive 93/37 and consequently
Article 11(3), (6), (7), (11) and (12) of the same directive by
awarding works without prior public notice. The Commission
states that all the works awarded should have been published in
the Official Journal in accordance with the provisions of Direc-
tive 93/37.

Secondly, the Commission considers that there is no informa-
tion either in the notice or in the tendering specifications which
would enable tenderers to bid for works on sections other than
the A-6 toll motorway links to Ávila and Segovia such as those
which were subsequently awarded. The Commission considers
therefore that the Spanish authorities have infringed the prin-
ciple of equality of treatment by accepting a tender which mani-
festly did not comply with the essential conditions set out in the
published notice and tendering specifications.

(1) Council Directive of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of
procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199,
p. 54).

High Court of
Division, Administrative Court

Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mark Horvath

Defendant: Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs

Questions referred

1. Where a Member State has provided for a system of devolved
government, in relation to which powers are retained to the
central state authorities to act for the whole of the territory
of the Member State to ensure compliance with that Member
State's obligations under Community law,
in relation to
Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing
the
common rules
common agricultural policy and establishing certain support
schemes
(EEC)
No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC)
No 1454/2001,
(EC)
(EEC) No 2358/71,
No 1254/1999,
and (EC) No 2529/2001 (1) (‘the Council Regulation’):

(EC) 1868/94,
(EC) No 1673/2000,

farmers and amending Regulations

(EC) No 1251/1999,

schemes under

for direct

support

for

a) Can a Member State include requirements relating to the
maintenance of visible public rights of way in its stan-
dards of good agricultural and environmental condition
under Article 5 and Annex IV to Council Regulation
1782/2003?

8.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/23

b) Where a Member State's internal constitutional arrange-
ments provide that different devolved administrations
shall have legislative competence in relation to different
constituent parts of that Member State, can it give rise to
impermissible discrimination for constituent parts to have
different standards of good agricultural and environ-
mental condition under Article 5 of and Annex IV to the
Council Regulation?

(1) OJ L 270, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State
(The Netherlands)
lodged on 17 September 2007 —
Exportslachterij J. Gosschalk & Zoon B.V. v Minister van
Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

(Case C-430/07)

(2007/C 297/38)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof
Amsterdam (The Netherlands) lodged on 22 May 2006 —
Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst v X BV

Referring court

Raad van State

(Case C-429/07)

(2007/C 297/37)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst

Defendant: X BV

Question referred

Is the Commission competent, under Article 15(3) of Regulation
No 1/2003, to submit, on its own initiative, written observa-
tions in proceedings relating to the deductibility from the
(taxable) profit realised by the party concerned in 2002 of a
fine for infringement of Community competition law, which
was imposed by the Commission on X KG and (partially) passed
on to the party concerned?

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Exportslachterij J. Gosschalk & Zoon B.V.

Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Questions referred

to

implement

1. Are the BSE tests which from 1 January 2001 were obliga-
tory under the Regeling uitvoer vers vlees en vleesberei-
dingen (Regulation on the export of fresh meat and meat
preparations) 1985 (Staatscourant 2001, No. 218), which
served
Decision
2000/764/EC (1) on the testing of bovine animals for the
presence
and
amending Decision 98/272/EC on epidemio-surveillance for
transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, tests within the
meaning of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2777/2000
adopting
the beef
market (2)?

spongiform encephalopathy

support measures

exceptional

bovine

Article

1(3)

for

of

of

2. If so, should Article 2(1) of Regulation No 2777/2000 be
seen as an intervention intended to stabilise the beef market
(market support) within the meaning of Article 1(2)(b) of
Regulation No 1258/1999 on the financing of the common
agricultural policy (3), or as a specific veterinary measure
within the meaning of subparagraph (d) of this provision, or
both?

3. If it is (also) a case of market support, does it then mean,
given the judgment of the Court in Case C-239/01 Federal
Republic of Germany v Commission (4), that the tests should be
financed exclusively by the Community and that therefore
Article 2(2) of Regulation No 2777/2000 is invalid because
of conflict with Regulation No 1254/1999 (5)
it
provides that the Community only partially contributes to
the costs of the BSE tests?

in that