CELEX: 62009CN0523
Language: en
Date: 2009-12-15 00:00:00
Title: Case C-523/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 15 December 2009 — AS Rakvere Piim, AS Maag Piimatööstus v Veterinaar- ja Toiduamet

13.3.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 63/25
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 15 December 2009 — AS Rakvere Piim, AS Maag Piimatööstus v Veterinaar- ja Toiduamet
   (Case C-523/09)
   2010/C 63/42
   Language of the case: Estonian
   
      Referring court
   
   Tartu Ringkonnakohus
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: AS Rakvere Piim and AS Maag Piimatööstus
   
      Defendant: Veterinaar- ja Toiduamet
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Must Article 27(4)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules be interpreted as not prohibiting the demanding of a fee from an operator at the minimum rate laid down in Part B of Annex IV to that regulation for the activities listed in Part A of Annex IV to the regulation, even if the costs borne by the responsible competent authorities in connection with the items listed in Annex VI to that regulation are lower than the above-mentioned minimum rates?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Is a Member State entitled, on the conditions mentioned in the previous question, to establish fees for the activities listed in Part A of Annex IV to that regulation that are lower than the minimum amounts laid down in Part B of Annex IV to that regulation, if the costs borne by the responsible competent authorities in connection with the items listed in Annex VI to that regulation are lower than the above-mentioned minimum rates, without the conditions laid down in Article 27(6) of that regulation being satisfied?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 2004 L 165, p. 1.