Case C-207/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Salzburg Aigen, Austria) — Schwaninger Martin Viehhandel — Viehexport v Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen (Regulation (EC) No 615/98 — Export refunds — Welfare of live bovine animals during transport — Directive 91/628/EEC — Applicability of the rules relating to the protection of animals during transport — Rules relating to journey times and rest periods and to the transportation of bovine animals by sea to a destination outside of the Community — Feeding and watering of the animals during the journey)
Date: 2008-07-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: animal welfare, cattle, export refund, health certificate, interpretation of the law, maritime transport, organisation of transport, transport of animals

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/5

to pay that surcharge to a statutorily designated undertaking of
the national electricity generators for the purpose of defraying a
sum representing the amount of obligations incurred and invest-
ments made by that undertaking prior to liberalisation of the
market — Payment by that undertaking of any surplus to the
competent ministry

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 July 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger
Finanzsenat Salzburg Aigen, Austria) — Schwaninger
Martin Viehhandel — Viehexport v Zollamt Salzburg,
Erstattungen

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 25 EC is to be construed as precluding a statutory rule
under which domestic purchasers of electricity are required to pay to
their net operator a price surcharge on the amounts of domestic
and imported electricity which are transmitted to them, where that
surcharge is to be paid by that net operator to a company desig-
nated by the legislature, with that
company being the joint
subsidiary of the four domestic generating undertakings and having
previously managed the costs of all the electricity generated and
imported, and where that surcharge is to be used in its entirety to
pay non-market-compatible
company is
costs
personally responsible, with the result that the sums received by that
company wholly offset the burden borne by the domestic electricity
transmitted.

for which that

(Case C-207/06) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 615/98 — Export refunds — Welfare of
live bovine animals during transport — Directive 91/628/EEC
— Applicability of the rules relating to the protection of
animals during transport — Rules relating to journey times
and rest periods and to the transportation of bovine animals
by sea to a destination outside of the Community — Feeding
and watering of the animals during the journey)

(2008/C 223/07)

Language of the case: German

The same applies where the national electricity generating undertak-
ings are required to bear those costs and where, by reason of
existing agreements, by the payment of a purchase price for electri-
city produced in the Member State, by the payment of dividends to
the various domestic electricity generating undertakings of which
the designated company is the subsidiary or by any other means,
the advantage which that price surcharge constitutes could be
passed on in its entirety by the designated company to the domestic
electricity generating undertakings.

Referring court

Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Salzburg Aigen

Parties to the main proceedings

Article 90 EC is to be construed as meaning that it precludes such
a statutory rule where the revenue from the charge levied on the
to pay non-market-
electricity transmitted is used only in part
compatible costs, that is to say where the amount levied by the
designated company only partly offsets the burden borne by the
national electricity transmitted.

Applicant: Schwaninger Martin Viehhandel — Viehexport

Defendant: Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen

2. Article 87 EC must be construed as meaning that the amounts
paid to the designated company under Article 9 of the Transitional
Law on the electricity generating sector (Overgangswet Elektriciteit-
sproductiesector) of 21 December 2000 constitute ‘State aid’ for
the purposes of that provision of the EC Treaty in so far as they
represent an economic advantage and not compensation for the
services provided by the designated company in order to discharge
public service obligations.

(1) OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Finanzsenat
(Austria) — Interpretation of Article 1 of Commission Regu-
lation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific
detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements
as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport
(OJ 1998 L 82, p. 19) and Chapter VII 48 point 7(a) and (b) of
the annex to Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November
1991 on the protection of animals during transport and
amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC (OJ 1991
L 340, p. 17) and the second indent of Article 5A point 2(d)(ii)
of that directive — Applicability of animal welfare legislation in
relation to journey times and rest periods when transporting

C 223/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.8.2008

bovine animals by sea to a destination outside of the Com-
munity in a vehicle loaded on to a ferry without unloading the
animals — Failure to state in the route plan the times at which
the animals transported were fed and watered during the
journey

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 July 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Employment
Tribunal (United Kingdom)) — S. Coleman v Attridge Law,
Steve Law

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March
1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the
export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of
live bovine
animals during transport cannot be interpreted as meaning that
point 48(7)(b) of the annex to Council Directive 91/628/EEC of
19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport
and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC, as
amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995, must
be applied to the case of transport by sea on a link between a
geographical point of the European Community and a geographical
point in a third country by means of vehicles loaded onto vessels
without unloading of the animals.

2. Point 48(7)(a) of the annex to Directive 91/628, as amended by
Directive 95/29, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case
of transport by sea between a geographical point of the European
Community and a geographical point situated in a third country by
means of vehicles
loaded onto vessels without unloading the
animals, the duration of the transport does not have to be taken
into account if the animals are transported in accordance with the
conditions laid down in point 48(3) and (4) of the annex to Direc-
tive 91/628, apart from journey times and rest periods. If that is
the case, a further period of transport by road may begin immedi-
ately after unloading the lorry at the port of destination in the
third country, in accordance with point 48(4)(d).

3. A route plan containing a pre-typed statement

indicating that
during the ferry journey animals are fed and watered ‘in the
evenings and mornings, at midday, and in the evenings and morn-
requirements of Directive 91/628, as
ings’ may satisfy the
amended by Directive 95/29, provided that it is established that
the animals were in fact fed and watered as stated. If the competent
authority considers, in the light of all the documents submitted by
the exporter, that the requirements of that directive have not been
complied with, it is for that authority to assess whether that non
compliance had an effect on the welfare of the animals, whether
such non compliance may, where appropriate, be remedied and
whether it must result in the export refund being forfeited, reduced
or retained.

(1) OJ C 190, 12.8.2006.

(Case C-303/06) (1)

(Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in
employment and occupation — Articles 1, 2(1), (2)(a) and (3)
and 3(1)(c) — Direct discrimination on grounds of disability
— Harassment related to disability — Dismissal of an
employee who is not himself disabled but whose child is
disabled — Included — Burden of proof)

(2008/C 223/08)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Employment Tribunal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: S. Coleman

Defendants: Attridge Law, Steve Law

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Employment Tribunal —
Interpretation of Articles 1, 2(2)(a) and 2(3) of Council Directive
2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general
framework for equal treatment (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) —
Scope of the term ‘disability’ — Possibility of extending it to a
person who is closely associated with a disabled person and has
been discriminated against by reason of
that association —
Employee bringing up a disabled child on her own

Operative part of the judgment

1. Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 estab-
lishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and
occupation, and,
in particular, Articles 1 and 2(1) and (2)(a)
thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition of
direct discrimination laid down by those provisions is not limited
only to people who are themselves disabled. Where an employer
treats an employee who is not himself disabled less favourably than
another employee is, has been or would be treated in a comparable
situation, and it is established that the less favourable treatment of
that employee is based on the disability of his child, whose care is
provided primarily by that employee, such treatment is contrary to
the prohibition of direct discrimination laid down by Article 2(2)(a).