Case C-10/23, Remia Com Impex: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 11 January 2023 — Remia Com Impex SRL v Autoritatea Națională Sanitară Veterinară și pentru Siguranța Alimentelor, Direcția Sanitară Veterinară și pentru Siguranța Alimentelor Dolj
Date: 2023-01-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: animal product, cold store, food inspection, food processing, food safety, market approval, refrigeration industry, retail trade, storage of food, veterinary inspection








C_2023164EN.01002902.xml










8.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/29






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 11 January 2023 — Remia Com Impex SRL v Autoritatea Națională Sanitară Veterinară și pentru Siguranța Alimentelor, Direcția Sanitară Veterinară și pentru Siguranța Alimentelor Dolj
(Case C-10/23, Remia Com Impex)
(2023/C 164/38)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Remia Com Impex SRL

Respondents: Autoritatea Națională Sanitară Veterinară și pentru Siguranța Alimentelor, Direcția Sanitară Veterinară și pentru Siguranța Alimentelor Dolj

Questions referred







1.


Must Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 (1) as a whole, and the provisions of Article 1(3) to (5) in particular, be interpreted as meaning that cold stores which carry out retail sales activities to other retail establishments, but not to the final consumer, have to be approved in accordance with that regulation, when the activity concerned does not fall within the exceptions provided for in Article 1(5)(b)?










2.


Must that regulation and EU law, in general, be interpreted as meaning that the national authorities which are responsible for ensuring the implementation of the policy which constitutes the objective to be achieved by the legislation and ensuring compliance with the corresponding obligations of the economic operators concerned are required to interpret the condition relating to marginal, localised and restricted activity, contained in Article 1(5)(b)(ii), in the light of recital 13 of that regulation, or may they derogate from that interpretation by means of their own definitions of the terms?










3.


If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, must the relevant definitions, contained in a national act transposing the regulation, respect the substance of the concepts, as described in recital 13?










4.


In view of the fact that the provisions of Article 17 of the Normele atașate Ordinului No 111/2008 (rules annexed to Order No 111/2008) provide that the activity of retail sale of products of animal origin may also include activities of supply and sale of products to other retail establishments throughout the territory of Romania without the obligation to obtain a veterinary health permit, does EU law and, in particular, Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, preclude such a provision and/or such an administrative practice?










5.


Does the principle of equivalence require that, where a measure of an administrative authority may be annulled on the ground that it does not comply with a national law, that administrative act may also be annulled on the ground that it does not comply with a relevant EU regulation, such as Regulation (EC) No 853/2004?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (OJ 2004 L 139, p. 55).