CELEX: 62016CN0383
Language: en
Date: 2016-07-11 00:00:00
Title: Case C-383/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 11 July 2016 — Vion Livestock B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

10.10.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 371/3
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 11 July 2016 — Vion Livestock B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken
   (Case C-383/16)
   (2016/C 371/03)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   
      Referring court
   
   College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Vion Livestock B.V.
   
      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Must Article 5(4) and Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 (1) of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations…, read in conjunction with the provisions regarding the journey log in Annex II to that regulation, be interpreted as meaning that they impose an obligation on the organiser of the transport and/or on the keeper of the animals, when transporting animals to a third country, to keep the journey log up to the place of destination in that third country?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Must Article 5 and Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 817/2010 (2) of 16 September 2010 laying down detailed rules pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards requirements for the granting of export refunds related to the welfare of live bovine animals during transport…, read in conjunction with Article 4 of that regulation, be interpreted as meaning that the export refunds must be recovered if the journey log was not kept up to the place of destination in the third country, for the reason that the transporter discharged the obligation laid down in point 7 of Annex II to Regulation No 1/2005 to give the journey log to the official veterinarian at the exit point?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Must Article 5 and Article 7 of Regulation No 817/2010, read in conjunction with Article 4 of that regulation, be interpreted as meaning that the export refunds must be recovered if the exporter is unable to prove compliance with the provisions of Regulation No 1/2005, in a situation where the veterinarian, in the context of the checks which he is required to carry out in the third country pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation No 817/2010, is unable to verify whether or not the route plan data (the journey log) are satisfactory, that is to say, whether or not they are in compliance with the provisions of Regulation No 1/2005 (and is consequently also unable to declare that the outcome of those checks is satisfactory), inasmuch as the transporter has given the journey log to the official veterinarian at the exit point?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 2005 L 3, p. 1.
   
      (2)  OJ 2010 L 245, p. 16.