Judgment of the Court of 14 November 2017 in Joined Cases E-2/17 and E-3/17, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Directive 89/662/EEC — Veterinary checks — Import restrictions — Raw and processed meat, egg and milk)
Date: 2017-11-14
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Iceland, egg, egg product, fresh meat, import restriction, infringement of EU law, meat product, milk product, veterinary inspection








C_2018097EN.01000901.xml










15.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 97/9





JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 14 November 2017
in Joined Cases E-2/17 and E-3/17,
EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Directive 89/662/EEC — Veterinary checks — Import restrictions — Raw and processed meat, egg and milk)

(2018/C 97/05)
In Joined Cases E-2/17 and E-3/17, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATIONS for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from the Act referred to at point 1 in Part 1.1 of Chapter I of Annex I to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (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) as amended and as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1 and by the sectoral adaptations in Annex I, and in particular Article 5 of the Act, by maintaining in force:






(i)


an authorisation system for the import of fresh meat and meat products, such as laid down in Article 10 of Icelandic Act No 25/1993 and Articles 3 to 5 of Icelandic Regulation No 448/2012;










(ii)


an authorisation system for the import of raw eggs and raw egg products, such as laid down in Article 10 of Icelandic Act No 25/1993 and Article 3(e) and Article 4 of Icelandic Regulation No 448/2012;










(iii)


an authorisation system for the import of unpasteurised milk and dairy products processed from unpasteurised milk and additional requirements, such as laid down in Article 10 of Icelandic Act No 25/1993 and Article 3(f) and Articles 4 and 5 of Icelandic Regulation No 448/2012, and a prohibition of the marketing of imported dairy products processed from unpasteurised milk, such as laid down in Article 7a of Icelandic Regulation No 104/2010; and










(iv)


an administrative practice of requiring importers to make a declaration and obtain an approval for the import of treated egg and dairy products, such as the one established in the context of the application of Icelandic Regulation No 448/2012,




the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 14 November 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:






1.


Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Article 5 of the Act referred to at point 1 in Part 1.1 of Chapter I of Annex I to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (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) as amended and as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1 and Annex I, by maintaining in force:






(i)


the authorisation system for the import of fresh meat and meat products laid down in Article 10 of Icelandic Act No 25/1993 and Article 3(a) and Articles 4 and 5 of Icelandic Regulation No 448/2012;










(ii)


the authorisation system for the import of raw eggs and egg products laid down in Article 10 of Icelandic Act No 25/1993 and Article 3(e) and Article 4 of Icelandic Regulation No 448/2012;










(iii)


the authorisation system for the import of unpasteurised milk and dairy products processed from unpasteurised milk laid down in Article 3(f) and Article 4 of Icelandic Regulation No 448/2012, and the additional requirements concerning certain cheeses laid down in the third paragraph of Article 5 of Icelandic Regulation No 448/2012; and










(iv)


an administrative practice requiring importers of treated egg and dairy products to submit data to the relevant national authority proving that the products have been treated in accordance with national legislation.














2.


Dismisses the remainder of the application.










3.


Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.