CELEX: C1997/108/30
Language: en
Date: 1997-04-05 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Kriminalret, Frederikshavn, by letter of 14 February 1997 in the case of the Anklagemyndighed v. Ditlev Bluhme (Case C-67/97)

No C 108/ 16           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                              5 . 4 . 97
Maurício Martins Pechim and Maria da Luz Lima Barros                        beekeeping constitutes one of the few forms of gainful
Raposo Pechim on the following questions:                                   activity by reason of the island's special flora and high
                                                                            proportion of uncultivated and extensively used land ?
(a ) Must the BFE ( Banco de Fomento e Exterior, SA) be
      regarded as an 'undertaking' and in particular 'a               2 . If a Member State can introduce such rules, the Court
      public undertaking', within the meaning of Articles 90                is requested to describe in general the conditions
      and 92 of the Treaty of Rome ?                                        governing those rules and in particular to answer the
                                                                            following questions:
( b ) May the advantage which the BFE enjoys over its
      competitors be interpreted as being 'State aid' within                ( a ) Can a Member State introduce such rules as
      the meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty of Rome ?                             described in 1 on the ground that the rules concern
                                                                                    solely such an island as described and that the
(c ) Must such advantages be taken to be restrictions to                            effect of the rules is therefore geographically
      the freedom to provide services within the                                    limited ?
      Community, within the meaning of Article 59 of the
      Treaty of Rome ?                                                    . ( b) Can a Member State introduce such rules as
                                                                                    described in 1 if the reason for those rules lies in
( d ) Do Articles 59, 90 ( 1 ), and 92 ( 1 ) of the Treaty of                       the desire to protect the bee species Apis mellifera
      Rome have direct effect and may they be relied upon                           mellifera against eradication, an objective which,
      in the present proceedings ?                                                  in the Member State 's opinion, can be attained by
                                                                                    excluding all other bee species from the island in
( e ) Do the rules of the Treaty of Rome take precedence                            question ?
      over and negate any conflicting national law ?
                                                                                    In the criminal proceedings underlying this order
                                                                                    for reference, the accused:
                                                                                    (i)      disputes that there is at all any such bee
                                                                                             species as Apis mellifera mellifera and submits
                                                                                             that the bees at present to be found on Laeso
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Kriminalret,                                       are a mixture of different bee species;
Frederikshavn, by letter of 14 February 1997 in the case
           of the Anklagemyndighed v. Ditlev Bluhme                                 ( ii ) submits that the brown bees to be found on
                         ( Case C-67/97)                                                     Laes0 are not unique but are found in many
                                                                                             parts of the world; and
                           ( 97/C 108/30 )
                                                                                     ( iii ) submits that those bees are not threatened
                                                                                             with eradication .
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 European Communities by letter of 14 February 1997
 from the Kriminalret ( Criminal Court), Fredrikshavn,                              In its response, the Court is therefore requested to
 which was received at the Court of Registry on                                      indicate whether it is sufficient that the Member
  17 February 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                          State in question considers it appropriate or
 the Anklagemyndighed (Public Prosecution Department) v.                             necessary to introduce the rules as a step in
 Ditlev Bluhme on the following questions :                                          preserving the bee population in question, or
                                                                                     whether it must be regarded as a further condition
                                  I                                                  that the bee species exists, and/or that it is unique,
                                                                                     and/or that it is threatened with eradication if the
                                                                                     import ban is not valid or cannot be enforced.
  Concerning the interpretation of Article 30 of the EC
  Treaty
                                                                              ( c ) If the grounds set out in points ( a ) or ( b ) cannot
                                                                                      make it lawful to introduce such rules, can a
  1 . Can Article 30 be interpreted as meaning that a                                 combination of those grounds make it so lawful ?
       Member State may, under certain circumstances,
       introduce rules prohibiting the keeping — and
       consequently the importation — of all bees other than                                                  II
       bees belonging to the species Apis mellifera mellifera
       (brown Laeso bee ) with regard to a specific island in          Concerning Council Directive 91 /174/EEC of 25 March
       the country in question, for example, an island of              1991 laying down zootechnical and pedigree requirements
       114 km2, one half of which consists of country villages         for the marketing of pure-bred animals and amending
       and small ports, and is used for purposes of tourism or         Directives 77/504/EEC and 90/425/EEC (').
       agriculture, while the other half consists of
       uncultivated land, that is to say, plantations,
       moorland, meadows, tidal meadows, beaches and                   1 . Under what circumstances can a bee be a pure-bred
       dunes, which had on 1 January 1997 a population of                      animal within the meaning attached to those words by
       2 365 , and which is an island on which opportunities                   Article 2 of Directive 91/174/EEC ? Is a golden bee, for
       for gainful activity are in general limited but where                   example, a pure-bred animal ?
 ---pagebreak--- 5 . 4 . 97              fENl                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 108/ 17
2 . What constitutes a zootechnical ground (Article 2 )?                  Action brought on 19 February 1997 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
3 . What constitutes a pedigree ground (Article 2 )?                                                          Spain
                                                                                                     ( Case C-71/97)
4 . Must Directive 91 /174/EEC be understood as meaning                                                ( 97/C 108/32 )
       that a Member State may, notwithstanding the
       Directive, ban the importation onto an island such as
       that described in Question 1 of Part I and the                     An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought
        existence there of all bees other than bees belonging to          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
        the species Apis mellifera mellifera }                            on 19 February 1997 by the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities, represented by Fernando Castillo de la
                                                                          Torre, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
        If a Member State can do so under certain conditions,             address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
        the Court is requested to set out those conditions .              Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
(') OJ No L 85 , 5.4. 1991 , p . 37.                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — declare that, by failing to designate zones considered
                                                                               to be vulnerable and by failing to notify such
                                                                               designations to the Commission, as provided for in
                                                                               Article    3   of    Council       Directive 91 /676/EEC    of
Action brought on 18 February 1997 by the Commission                            12 December 1991 concerning the protection of
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                             waters against pollution caused by nitrates from
                                  Belgium                                      agricultural sources ('), and by failing either to
                            ( Case C-68/ 97 )                                  establish or communicate to the Commission the code
                                                                               or codes of good agricultural practice provided for in
                              ( 97/C 108/31 )                                   Article 4 of the Directive, the Kingdom of Spain has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive,
 An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                  — order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .
 on 18 February 1997 by the Commission of the European
 Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, acting                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
 the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,                    The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
 Kirchberg.                                                                relied on in Case C-56/97 (2); the time-limit expired on
                                                                           19 December 1993 .
 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           (') OJ No L 375 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p. 1 .
                                                                           (2) See page 12 of this Official Journal.
 — declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force,
         within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or
         administrative provisions necessary to comply fully
         with the Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of
         14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the
         Member States relating to insurance against civil
         liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles ( 1 ), and      Action brought on 19 February 1997 by the Commission
         in particular by failing to transpose into Belgian Law            of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
         Article 5 thereof, or, in the alternative, by not                                                     Spain
         notifying the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of                                               ( Case C-72/97)
         Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the                                           ( 97/C 108/33 )
         EC Treaty and the Directive,
  — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                         An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought
                                                                            before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                            on 19 February 1997 by the Commission of the European
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       Communities, represented by Fernando Castillo de la
                                                                            Torre, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
  The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                  address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
  relied on in Case C-56197 (2); the time-limit expired on                  Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
  31 December 1992.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
   C ) OJ No L 129 , 19 . 5 . 1990, p. 33 .
   (2 ) See page 12 of this Official Journal .                              — declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
                                                                                 or notify the laws, regulations or administrative
                                                                                 provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive