Staat der Nederlanden (Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij) v Ten Kate Holding Musselkanaal BV and Others.
Date: 2005-10-20
25. It follows that the Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to interpret the internal law of a Member State (order in Case C-307/95 Max Mara [1995] ECR I‑5083, paragraph 5; judgment in Case C-58/98 Corsten [2000] ECR I-7919, paragraph 24; and order in Case C-391/00 Colapietro , not published in the ECR, paragraphs 8 and 9).
28. Nor can any such obligation be inferred from Article 10 EC, on which the respondents in the main proceedings rely in support of their contention.  The principle to which Article 10 EC gives expression imposes on Member States and on the institutions mutual duties of sincere cooperation (Case 230/81 Luxembourg  v Parliament  [1983] ECR 255, paragraph 37; order in Case C-2/88 Imm. Zwartveld and Others  [1990] ECR I-3365, paragraph 17), but it cannot be construed as meaning that a Member State may be obliged, vis-à-vis one of its citizens, to bring an action for annulment or an action in respect of a failure to act.
29. By contrast, taking into consideration the conditions set out in the Treaties governing admissibility of actions and the right to effective judicial protection, the Court has interpreted that principle of sincere cooperation as meaning that national courts are required, so far as possible, to interpret and apply national procedural rules governing the exercise of rights of action in a way that enables natural and legal persons to challenge before the courts the legality of any decision or other national measure relative to the application to them of a Community act of general application, by pleading the invalidity of such an act (Case C-50/00 P Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council [2002] ECR I-6677, paragraph 42).  The same holds true where a natural or legal person invokes a failure to take a decision, within the meaning of Article 232 EC, which it considers to be contrary to Community law.
35. By contrast, the Netherlands Government and the Commission take the view that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Commission was not obliged to grant such authorisation.  They point out that, contrary to what the Hoge Raad suggests, the matter was put before the Standing Veterinary Committee during its meeting on 7 and 8 March 1995.  The Committee did not, however, adopt a position.  Nor did the Commission submit a proposal to the Council.  They set out the developments in the understanding of BSE, which, they argue, justify the fact that no decision was taken. The Netherlands Government also cites the judgments in Case C-151/98 P Pharos  v Commission  [1999] ECR I‑8157, paragraph 25, and in Case C-352/98 P Bergaderm and Goupil  v Commission [2000] ECR I‑5291, paragraph 66, and contends that, while ordering the Commission to act quickly, the Community legislature left the Commission with some degree of latitude and that the expression ‘shall, without delay, submit to the Council’ depends on the specific circumstances.
41. The Court has in this connection already ruled, with regard to a legislative procedure comparable to that provided for by Decision 94/381, that the Commission must be given a discretion which is sufficient to allow it to determine, on a fully informed basis, the measures that are necessary and appropriate for the protection of public health (Case C-198/03 P Commission  v CEVA Santé animale  [2005] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 80).