CELEX: C2003/146/25
Language: en
Date: 2003-06-21 00:00:00
Title: Case C-97/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van Beroep voor het Bedrĳfsleven by judgment of that Court of 7 January 2003 in the proceedings between Mr and Mrs T.H.J.M. van Schaĳk and Directeur van de Rĳksdienst voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees

21.6.2003              EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 146/15
2.    Does Directive 85/511/EEC (1), as amended by Directive          Action brought on 28 February 2003 by the Commission
      90/423/EEC (2), afford the Member States scope to (order        of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
      or) take supplementary national measures to control foot-                                lic of Germany
      and-mouth disease?
3.    What limits does Community law place on a Member                                          (Case C-98/03)
      State with regard to taking supplementary national
      measures other than those provided for in Directive 85/
      511/EEC, as amended by Directive 90/423/EEC?                                            (2003/C 146/26)
( 1) OJ L 315 [1985], p. 11.
( 2) OJ L 224 [1990], p. 13.
                                                                      An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                      brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                      ties on 28 February 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities, represented by Ulrich Wölker, Legal Adviser of
                                                                      the Commission of the European Communities, with an
                                                                      address for service in Luxembourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by judgment of that Court               The applicant claims that the Court should:
of 7 January 2003 in the proceedings between Mr and
Mrs T.H.J.M. van Schaijk and Directeur van de Rijksdienst
               voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees                       1.    Declare that
                           (Case C-97/03)                                   —    by not providing for the duty to carry out an
                                                                                 assessment of the implications in the case of certain
                                                                                 projects outside special areas of conservation, as
                          (2003/C 146/25)                                        referred to in Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/
                                                                                 43/EEC ( 1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of
                                                                                 natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, which
                                                                                 pursuant to Article 6(3) and (4) of the directive are
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           to be subject to such an assessment irrespective of
European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep                       whether those projects are likely to have a significant
voor het Bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and                       effect on an area of special conservation;
Industry) of 7 January 2003, received at the Court Registry on
4 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                   —    by authorising emissions in a special area of conser-
between Mr and Mrs T.H.J.M. van Schaijk and Directeur van                        vation, irrespective of whether they are likely to
de Rijksdienst voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees on the                           have a significant effect on that area;
following questions:
1.    May a Member State derive from Community law the                      —    by derogating from the scope of the provisions
      power to decide to kill animals which are suspected of                     concerning the protection of species in the case of
      being infected or contaminated with the foot-and-mouth                     certain non-deliberate effects on protected animals;
      virus?
                                                                            —    by failing to ensure compliance with the criteria for
2.    Does Directive 85/511/EEC (1), as amended by Directive                     derogation set out in Article 16 of the directive in
      90/423/EEC (2), afford the Member States scope to (order                   the case of certain activities which are supposed to
      or) take supplementary national measures to control foot-                  be compatible with conservation of an area;
      and-mouth disease?
                                                                            —    by retaining provisions on the application of pestic-
3.    What limits does Community law place on a Member                           ides which do not take sufficient account of the
      State with regard to taking supplementary national                         protection of species;
      measures other than those provided for in Directive 85/
      511/EEC, as amended by Directive 90/423/EEC?
                                                                            —    by failing to notify fishery catch legislation and/or
                                                                                 to ensure that such legislation contains adequate
( 1) OJ L 315 [1985], p. 11.                                                     bans on fishing,
( 2) OJ L 224 [1990], p. 13.
                                                                            the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
                                                                            obligations under the directive.