![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) >> van der Weerd and Others (Agriculture) [2007] EUECJ C-224/05 (07 June 2007) URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2007/C22405.html Cite as: [2007] EUECJ C-224/5, [2007] EUECJ C-224/05 |
[New search] [Printable version] [Help]
(Agriculture Control of foot-and-mouth disease Directive 85/511/EEC National court raising Community law of its own motion Procedural autonomy Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)
In Joined Cases C-222/05 to C-225/05,
REFERENCES for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC by the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands), made by decisions of 17 May 2005, received at the Court on 20 May 2005, in the proceedings
J. van der Weerd,
Maatschap Van der Bijl,
J.W. Schoonhoven (C-222/05),
H. de Rooy, sen.,
H. de Rooy, jun. (C-223/05),
Maatschap H. en J. van 't Oever,
Maatschap F. van 't Oever en W. Fien,
B. van 't Oever,
Maatschap A. en J. Fien,
Maatschap K. Koers en J. Stellingwerf,
H. Koers,
Maatschap K. en G. Polinder,
G. van Wijhe (C-224/05),
B.J. van Middendorp (C-225/05),
Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit,
composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, E. Juhász, R. Silva de Lapuerta, J. Malenovský (Rapporteur) and T. von Danwitz, Judges,
Advocate General: M. Poiares Maduro,
Registrar: M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator,
having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 7 December 2006,
after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Mr van der Weerd, Maatschap Van der Bijl and M. Schoonhoven, Maatschap H. en J. van 't Oever, Maatschap F. van 't Oever en W. Fien, Mr van 't Oever, Maatschap A. en J. Fien, Maatschap K. Koers en J. Stellingwerf, Ms Koers, Maatschap K. en G. Polinder and Mr van Wijhe, by A. van Beek and G. de Jager, advocaten,
the Netherlands Government, by H.G. Sevenster and C. ten Dam, acting as Agents,
the French Government, by G. de Bergues and R. Loosli'Surrans, acting as Agents,
the Commission of the European Communities, by F. Erlbacher, M. van Heezik and T. van Rijn, acting as Agents,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 1 March 2007,
gives the following
Legal framework
Community legislation
National legislation
-1. The court before which proceedings are brought shall give its ruling on the basis of the application, the documents produced, the preliminary investigation and the consideration of the case at the hearing.
2. The court shall supplement the pleas in law of its own motion.
3. The court may supplement the facts of its own motion.'
The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
-1. Does Community law require the courts of their own motion to conduct an examination, that is to say, an examination of grounds which are outside the terms of the dispute, by reference to criteria based on Directive 85/511?
2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, does the obligation on Member States under the first indent of Article 11(1) of Directive 85/511, read in conjunction with the second indent of Article 13(1) thereof, to ensure that laboratory testing to detect the presence of foot-and-mouth disease is carried out by a laboratory listed in Annex B to Directive 85/511 have direct effect?
3. (a) Must Article 11(1) of Directive 85/511 be interpreted as meaning that legal consequences must be attached to the fact that the presence of foot-and-mouth disease is found by a laboratory which is not listed in Annex B to Directive 85/511?
(b) If the answer to Question 3(a) is in the affirmative:
Is the purpose of Article 11(1) of Directive 85/511 to protect the interests of individuals, such as the appellants in the main proceedings? If not, can individuals, such as the appellants in the main proceedings, plead possible failure to fulfil the obligations which this provision places on the authorities of the Member States?
(c) If the answer to Question 3(b) means that individuals can rely on Article 11(1) of Directive 85/511:
What legal consequences must be attached to a finding of the presence of foot-and-mouth disease by a laboratory which is not listed in Annex B to Directive 85/511?
4. Must Annex B to Directive 85/511 be interpreted, having regard to Articles 11 and 13 thereof, as meaning that the reference in Annex B to Directive 85/511 to 'Centraal Diergeneeskundig Instituut, Lelystad' can or must refer also to [ID-Lelystad]?
5. If it follows from the above answers that the presence of foot'and'mouth disease can be found by a laboratory which is not listed in Annex B to Directive 85/511 or that Annex B to Directive 85/511 must be interpreted as meaning that the mention of the 'Centraal Diergeneeskundig Instituut, Lelystad' can or must refer also to [ID-Lelystad]:
Must Directive 85/511 be interpreted as providing that the national administrative authority authorised to adopt decisions is bound by the outcome of an examination by a laboratory which is listed in Annex B to Directive 85/51 or if the answer to Question 3(a) means that the administrative authority may base its foot-and-mouth disease control measures also on results obtained by a laboratory which is not listed in Annex B to Directive 85/511 by the results of the latter laboratory, or does the determination of final authority in that regard fall within the procedural autonomy of the Member State, so that the court before which the main proceedings are pending must examine whether the rules in that respect apply irrespective of whether the laboratory examination is carried out by virtue of a Community or national legal obligation and whether or not the application of the provisions of national procedural law renders the implementation of the Community rules excessively difficult or virtually impossible?
6. If the answer to Question 5 means that the issue of whether national authorities are bound by the laboratory result is governed by Directive 85/511:
Are the national authorities bound unconditionally by the result of a foot-and-mouth disease examination carried out by a laboratory? If not, what margin of discretion does Directive 85/511 leave these national authorities?'
The questions referred for a preliminary ruling
Question 1
Admissibility
Substance
The other questions
Costs
On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby rules:
Community law does not require the national court, in an action of the kind which forms the basis of the main proceedings, to raise of its own motion a plea alleging infringement of the provisions of Community legislation, since neither the principle of equivalence nor the principle of effectiveness require it to do so.
[Signatures]
* Language of the case: Dutch.