CELEX: 62018CN0477
Language: en
Date: 2018-07-23 00:00:00
Title: Case C-477/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 23 July 2018 — Exportslachterij J. Gosschalk en Zn. B.V. v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

15.10.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 373/8
            
         
      Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 23 July 2018 — Exportslachterij J. Gosschalk en Zn. B.V. v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
      (Case C-477/18)
      (2018/C 373/09)
      Language of the case: Dutch
      
         Referring court
      
      College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Appellant: Exportslachterij J. Gosschalk en Zn. B.V.
      
         Respondent: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
      
         Questions referred
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Should the phrases ‘the staff involved in the official controls’ in point 1 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (‘Regulation No 882/2004’) and ‘the staff involved in the official controls’ in point 2 of Annex VI to Regulation No 882/2004 be interpreted as meaning that the (salary) costs that may be taken into account when calculating the fees for official controls, may only be the (salary) costs of official veterinarians and official auxiliaries who perform the official inspections, or can they also include the (salary) costs of other staff employed by the Nederlandse Voedsel- en Warenautoriteit (Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority; ‘NVWA’) or by the private company Kwaliteitskeuring Dierlijke Sector (‘KDS’)?
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  If the answer to question 1 is that the phrases ‘the staff involved in the official controls’ in point 1 of Annex VI to Regulation No 882/2004 and ‘the staff involved in the official controls’ in point 2 of Annex VI to Regulation No 882/2004 may also include the (salary) costs of other staff employed by the NVWA or KDS, under what circumstances and within which limits is there then still such a relationship between the costs incurred for that other staff and the official controls, that the reimbursement of those (salary) costs can be based on Article 27(4) and Annex VI, points 1 and 2, of Regulation No 882/2004?
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  
                              a.
                           
                           
                              Should the provisions of Article 27(4)(a) and of Annex VI, points 1 and 2, of Regulation No 882/2004 be interpreted as meaning that the aforementioned Article 27(4)(a) and Annex VI, points 1 and 2, of Regulation No 882/2004 preclude slaughterhouses from being charged fees in relation to official controls for quarter-hours requested by those slaughterhouses from the competent authorities but not actually worked for the purposes of official controls?
                           
                        
                              b.
                           
                           
                              Does the answer to question 3a also apply in the case of official veterinarians contracted by the competent authority who do not receive a salary for quarter-hours which the slaughterhouse has requested from the competent authority but in which no activities related to official controls are actually carried out, whereas the amount which the slaughterhouse is charged for quarter-hours applied for but not worked is for the benefit of the general overhead cost structure of the competent authority?
                           
                        
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Should the provisions of Article 27(4)(a) and of Annex VI, points 1 and 2, of Regulation No 882/2004 be interpreted as meaning that the aforementioned Article 27(4) precludes the slaughterhouses from being charged an average rate for the activities for the purposes of official inspections performed by veterinarians employed by the NVWA and by (lower-salaried) contracted veterinary surgeons, so that slaughterhouses are charged a higher rate than is paid to the contracted veterinarians?
               
            
                  5.
               
               
                  Should the provisions of Article 26 and Article 27(4)(a), and of Annex VI, points 1 and 2, of Regulation No 882/2004 be interpreted as meaning that, when calculating the fees for official controls, costs may be taken into account for the purposes of building the buffer reserves of a private company (KDS) from which the competent authority contracts official auxiliaries, reserves which, in the event of a crisis, can be used to pay the salary and training costs of staff who actually perform the official controls as well as of staff who make it possible to perform the official controls?
               
            
                  6.
               
               
                  If the answer to the question formulated under [5] is in the affirmative: what is the maximum amount that can be accumulated in such buffer reserves and what is the length of the period which may be covered by such reserves?
               
            
         (1)  OJ 2004 L 165, p. 1.