CELEX: C2000/247/41
Language: en
Date: 2000-08-26 00:00:00
Title: Case C-270/00: Action brought on 3 July 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

26.8.2000             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 247/27
Action brought on 3 July 2000 by the Commission of the                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Judicial
  European Communities against the Republic of Austria                 da Comarca de Ponta Delgada, by judgment of that court
                                                                       of 4 June 2000, in the case of RAR — Refinarias de Açúcar
                                                                       Reunidas, SA v SINAGA — Sociedade de Indústrias
                         (Case C-270/00)                                                         Açoreanas, SA
                         (2000/C 247/41)
                                                                                                (Case C-282/00)
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 July
2000, by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Dr Götz zur Hausen, Legal Advisor to the                                         (2000/C 247/42)
European Commission with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a member of
the Legal Service of the European Commission, Wagner Centre
C 254, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal Judicial
                                                                       da Comarca de Ponta Delgada of 11 July 2000, which
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       was received at the Court Registry on 17 July 2000, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the case of RAR — Refinarias de Açucar
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the provisions necessary       Reunidas, SA v SINAGA — Sociedade de Indústrias Açoreanas,
      to comply with Articles 5, 16 and 17 of Council Directive        SA, on the following questions:
      86/609/EEC (1) of 24 November 1986 on the approxi-
      mation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions
      of the Member States regarding the protection of animals
                                                                       1.   Does the second paragraph of Article 8 of Council
      used for experimental and other scientific purposes, the
                                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 1600/92 of 15 June 1992 apply to
      Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                            (i) sugar processed from raw sugar (sugar properly
      under that directive;
                                                                            speaking, whether it comes from locally-grown or
                                                                            imported raw sugarbeet) (ii) or only to sugar added to
2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                       products which include it (such as cakes, soft drinks etc)?
                                                                            (essentially, what is sought is the substance of the
                                                                            expression ‘products ... are processed’ contained in the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             legislation).
As is clear from Articles 2 and 166 of the Act of Accession,           2.   Are the sales referred to in 3 (below) covered by the
the obligation under Article 25 of Directive 86/609/EEC took                concepts ‘traditional trade flows’, ‘traditional exports’ and
effect for Austria upon Austria’s accession on 1 January 1995.              ‘traditional ... shipments’ to ‘the rest of the Community’,
Such legislative measures as Austria has adopted since then                 contained in Article 3(3) and the second paragraph of
notwithstanding, the following provisions have not yet been                 Article 8 of the abovementioned regulation?
properly transposed into national law:
—     Article 5 (provisions relating to the general care and           3.   Irrespective of the answer to the preceding questions,
      accommodation of experimental animals). The provisions                does the legal framework in force, from September 1998
      of the Tierversuchsgesetz referred to by Austria only                 to date, allow Sinaga to sell in mainland Portugal sugar
      relate to user establishments but not to breeding and                 produced by it from sugarbeet harvested in the Azores
      supplying establishments and only to the approval and                 and for the production of which it obtains Community
      registration of user establishments but not to their day-             aid under the Poseima programme?
      to-day functioning;
—     Article 16 (identification by name of persons responsible        4.   Again irrespective of the answers to the preceding
      for breeding and supplying establishments);                           questions, does the legal framework in force, from
                                                                            September 1998 to date, allow Sinaga to sell in mainland
—     Article 17 (breeding and supplying establishments’ obli-              Portugal sugar produced by it from imported raw sugar-
      gation to keep records).                                              beet which is exempt from levies under the Poseima
                                                                            programme?
(1) OJ 1986 L 358, p. 1.