CELEX: C2003/135/08
Language: en
Date: 2003-06-07 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 April 2003 in Case C-276/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Schleswig): Joachim Steffensen (Directive 89/397/EEC — Official control of foodstuffs — Second subparagraph of Article 7(1) — Analysis of samples — Right to a second opinion — Direct effect — Admissibility of the results of analyses as evidence in the event of an infringement of the right to a second opinion)

C 135/6                    EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                              7.6.2003
      use of work equipment by workers at work (second individual                  the light of all the factual and legal evidence available to it,
      Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/               whether or not the results of analyses of samples of a
      391/EEC), as amended by Council Directive 95/63/EC of                        manufacturer’s products are to be admitted as evidence that the
      5 December 1995;                                                             manufacturer has infringed a Member State’s national rules on
                                                                                   foodstuffs where the manufacturer has been unable to exercise
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                                his right to a second opinion under the second subparagraph of
                                                                                   Article 7(1) of Directive 89/397. In that regard, the national
                                                                                   court must verify that the national rules on the taking of
( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.04.2001.
                                                                                   evidence applicable to such an action are not less favourable
                                                                                   than those governing similar domestic actions (the principle of
                                                                                   equivalence) and that they do not render practically impossible
                                                                                   or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by
                                                                                   Community law (the principle of effectiveness). In addition, the
                                                                                   national court must consider whether such evidence must be
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           excluded in order to avoid measures incompatible with com-
                                                                                   pliance with fundamental rights, in particular the right to a fair
                                                                                   hearing before a tribunal as laid down in Article 6(1) of the
                             (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                   European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
                                                                                   Fundamental Freedoms.
                            of 10 April 2003
in Case C-276/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                    (1 ) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.
     the Amtsgericht Schleswig): Joachim Steffensen (1)
(Directive 89/397/EEC — Official control of foodstuffs —
Second subparagraph of Article 7(1) — Analysis of samples
— Right to a second opinion — Direct effect — Admissibility
of the results of analyses as evidence in the event of an
         infringement of the right to a second opinion)
                                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                             (2003/C 135/08)
                     (Language of the case: German)                                                     (First Chamber)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                  of 10 April 2003
                      in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             in Case C-114/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                                   ties v French Republic ( 1)
In Case C-276/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Amtsgericht Schleswig (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court against                  (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Joachim Steffensen, on the interpretation of the second                      Directive 98/8/EC — Failure to transpose within the pre-
subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Council Directive 89/397/EEC                                             scribed period)
of 14 June 1989 on the official control of foodstuffs (OJ 1989
L 186, p. 23), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                                                        (2003/C 135/09)
M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans
(Rapporteur), P. Jann, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas, Judges; C. Stix-
Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Adminis-                                         (Language of the case: French)
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 April
2003, in which it has ruled:
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
1.    The second subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Council Directive                               in the European Court Reports)
      89/397/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the official control of
      foodstuffs is to be construed as meaning that a manufacturer
      may rely on a right to a second opinion based on that article
      against the competent authorities of a Member State where              In Case C-114/02, Commission of the European Communities
      those authorities claim that his products fail to meet the             (Agent: L. Ström) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues
      standard required by the national rules on foodstuffs on the           and E. Puisais): Application for a declaration that, by failing to
      basis of an analysis of samples of those products taken from           adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative measures
      retail outlets.                                                        necessary to comply with Directive 98/8/EC of the European
                                                                             Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning
2.    It is for the national court before which an action such as that       the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 1998
      at issue in the main proceedings has been brought to assess, in        L 123, p. 1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its