CELEX: 62013CA0339
Language: en
Date: 2014-05-22 00:00:00
Title: Case C-339/13: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 May 2014  — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 1999/74/EC — Articles 3 and 5(2) — Ban on rearing laying hens in unenriched cage systems — Rearing of laying hens in cages which do not conform to the requirements of that directive)

4.8.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 253/12
            
         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 May 2014 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-339/13) (1)
   
   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 1999/74/EC - Articles 3 and 5(2) - Ban on rearing laying hens in unenriched cage systems - Rearing of laying hens in cages which do not conform to the requirements of that directive))
   2014/C 253/15
   Language of the case: Italian
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and B. Schima, acting as Agents)
   
      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, agent, F Urbani Neri, avvocato dello Stato)
   
      Re:
   
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 3 and 5(2) of Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens (OJ 1999 L 203, p. 53)
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               By having failed to ensure, from 1 January 2012, that laying hens are no longer reared in unenriched cage systems, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 and 5(2) of Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.