Case C-445/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Danske Slagterier v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Measures having equivalent effect — Animal health — Intra-Community trade — Fresh meat — Veterinary checks — Non-contractual liability of a Member State — Limitation period — Determination of the loss or damage)
Date: 2009-03-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU legal system, application of EU law, interpretation of the law, liability of the State, limitation of legal proceedings, marketing, pigmeat








C_2009113EN.01000202.xml










16.5.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/2





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Danske Slagterier v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
(Case C-445/06) (1)

(Measures having equivalent effect - Animal health - Intra-Community trade - Fresh meat - Veterinary checks - Non-contractual liability of a Member State - Limitation period - Determination of the loss or damage)
2009/C 113/03
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Danske Slagterier

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 28 EC and of Articles 5(1)(o) and 6(1)(b)(iii) of Council Directive 64/433/EEC of 26 June 1964 on health conditions for the production and marketing of fresh meat (OJ, English Special Edition 1963-64, p. 185), as amended by Council Directive 91/497/EEC of 29 July 1991 (OJ 1991 L 268, p. 69), in conjunction with Articles 5(1), 7 and 8 of Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 13) — Interpretation of Community law concerning a Member State’s non-contractual liability for breach of Community law — Limitation period — Determination of the loss or damage for which reparation may be granted and of the obligations on the injured party

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Individuals who have been harmed by the incorrect transposition and application of Council Directive 64/433/EEC of 26 June 1964 on health conditions for the production and marketing of fresh meat, as amended by Council Directive 91/497/EEC of 29 July 1991, and Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market may rely on the right to the free movement of goods in order to be able to render the State liable for the breach of Community law.










2.


Where the Commission of the European Communities has brought infringement proceedings under Article 226 EC, Community law does not require the limitation period laid down by national legislation for a claim seeking reparation on account of State liability for breach of Community law to be interrupted or suspended during those proceedings.










3.


Community law does not preclude the limitation period applicable to an action for damages against the State for incorrect transposition of a directive from beginning to run on the date on which the first injurious effects of the incorrect transposition have been produced and the further injurious effects thereof are foreseeable, even if that date is prior to the correct transposition of the directive.










4.


Community law does not preclude the application of national legislation which lays down that an individual cannot obtain reparation for loss or damage which he has wilfully or negligently failed to avert by utilising a legal remedy, provided that utilisation of that remedy can reasonably be required of the injured party, a matter which is for the referring court to determine in light of all the circumstances of the main proceedings. The likelihood that a national court will make a reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC or the existence of infringement proceedings pending before the Court of Justice cannot, in itself, constitute a sufficient reason for concluding that it is not reasonable to have recourse to a legal remedy.






(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.