CELEX: 62007CA0309
Language: en
Date: 2009-03-19 00:00:00
Title: Case C-309/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany)) — Firma Baumann GmbH v Land Hessen (Common agricultural policy — Fees concerning veterinary inspections and controls — Directive 85/73/EEC)

16.5.2009   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 113/6
            
         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany)) — Firma Baumann GmbH v Land Hessen
   (Case C-309/07) (1)
   
   (Common agricultural policy - Fees concerning veterinary inspections and controls - Directive 85/73/EEC)
   2009/C 113/11
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Firma Baumann GmbH
   
      Defendant: Land Hessen
   
      Re:
   
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof –Interpretation of Article 5(3) and points 1, 2(a), 4(a) and 4(b) of Chapter I of Annex A to Council Directive 85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985 on the financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat and poultrymeat (OJ 1985 L 32, p. 14), as amended by Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June 1996 (OJ 1996 L 162, p. 1) — Legislation making a distinction between slaughtering units in large establishments and other slaughtering activities, adjusting the rate of fees on a diminishing scale according to animal types and increasing fees for slaughtering carried out outside normal hours
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Point 4(a) of chapter I of Annex A to Council Directive 85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985 on the financing of veterinary inspections and controls covered by Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC, 90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC, as amended and consolidated by Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not permit Member States to deviate from the fee structure laid down in points 1 and 2(a) of Chapter I of Annex A and charge a fee the scale of which varies according to the size of establishments and diminishes according to the number of animals slaughtered per animal type;
               Point 4(b) of chapter I of Annex A to Directive 85/73, as amended and consolidated by Directive 96/43, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is not required to comply with the fee structure laid down in points 1 and 2(a) of Chapter I of Annex A and may charge a fee the scale of which varies according to the size of an establishment and the number of animals slaughtered per animal type, where it is established that those factors have an actual effect on the actual costs incurred in carrying out the veterinary inspections and controls required by the relevant provisions of Community law.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Point 4(a) of chapter I of Annex A to Directive 85/73, as amended and consolidated by Directive 96/43, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may charge, in respect of inspections of animals which, at the request of the owner, are slaughtered outside normal slaughtering hours, an ‘additional fee on a percentage basis’ on top of the fee normally charged for inspections of animals when that increase represents a standard value which reflects the additional costs to be covered;
               Point 4(b) of chapter I of Annex A to Directive 85/73, as amended and consolidated by Directive 96/43, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may charge, in respect of inspections of animals which, at the request of the owner, are slaughtered outside normal slaughtering hours, an ‘additional fee on a percentage basis’ on top of the fee normally charged for inspections of animals when that increase reflects the additional actual costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.