CELEX: 61983CC0090
Language: en
Date: 1984-01-19 00:00:00
Title: Opinion of Mr Advocate General VerLoren van Themaat delivered on 19 January 1984. # Michael Paterson and others v W. Weddel & Company Limited and others. # Reference for a preliminary ruling: High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division - United Kingdom. # Transport by road of animal carcases and waste. # Case 90/83.

OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL
   VERLOREN VAN THEMAAT
   DELIVERED ON 19 JANUARY 1984 (
         1
      )
   
      Mr President,
   
   
      Members of the Court,
   
   I consider the observations submitted by the Commission in this case sufficiently comprehensive and appropriate for there to be no necessity for me to make any addition or amendment thereto. The other observations, both written and oral, which were submitted to the Court were also, of course, extremely useful; however, I do not consider them such as to refute the very persuasive arguments put forward by the Commission. If I well understand him, Counsel for the first two accused in the main proceedings has based the observations we have just heard primarily on the English language version of the relevant regulation, as well as on certain ambiguities present in that version which confuse its import. However, that is the kind of situation in which this Court has been able, if not always, at least very often, to resolve the ambiguities by comparing the various language versions. Reference to the preamble, or the ‘rationale’ of the provisions in questions, to use Mr Pardoe's words, may be necessaiy or useful only as regards any remaining uncertainty and that, I think, is the approach which has been followed by the Commission in its submissions. I therefore endorse those arguments without reserve and suggest that the Court reply to the questions in the manner proposed by the Commission. The wording of the questions appears to me, however, to call for a somewhat different wording of the Court's replies to that suggested by the Commission.
   Such wording, which follows more closely that of the questions themselves whilst adding, by implication, some further definition as suggested by Mr Pardoe, might I think be as follows:
   Reply to Questions 1 and 2
   The term “carcases” within the meaning of Article 14a (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 543/69 of the Council of 25 March 1969, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2827/77 of 12 December 1977, applies solely to carcases not intended for human consumption, consisting of the whole, or almost the whole, body of dead or slaughtered animals.
   Reply to Questions 3 and 4
   “Animal waste not intended for human consumption”, the phrase which defines another exception in the abovementioned article, refers to all the byproducts of slaughtering which are intended for use other than as food for humans, including byproducts which have some commercial value in those other uses.
   Reply to Question 5
   The exception provided for in Article 14a (2) (c) of the abovementioned regulation does not apply to a vehicle transporting at the same time products other than carcases and animal waste not intended for human consumption.
   (
         1
      )	Translated from the French.