You are on page 1of 1

21.6.

2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 146/15

2. Does Directive 85/511/EEC (1), as amended by Directive Action brought on 28 February 2003 by the Commission
90/423/EEC (2), afford the Member States scope to (order of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
or) take supplementary national measures to control foot- lic of Germany
and-mouth disease?

3. What limits does Community law place on a Member (Case C-98/03)


State with regard to taking supplementary national
measures other than those provided for in Directive 85/
511/EEC, as amended by Directive 90/423/EEC? (2003/C 146/26)

( 1) OJ L 315 [1985], p. 11.


( 2) OJ L 224 [1990], p. 13.
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 28 February 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Ulrich Wölker, Legal Adviser of
the Commission of the European Communities, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van


Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by judgment of that Court The applicant claims that the Court should:
of 7 January 2003 in the proceedings between Mr and
Mrs T.H.J.M. van Schaijk and Directeur van de Rijksdienst
voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees 1. Declare that

(Case C-97/03) — by not providing for the duty to carry out an


assessment of the implications in the case of certain
projects outside special areas of conservation, as
(2003/C 146/25) referred to in Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/
43/EEC ( 1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, which
pursuant to Article 6(3) and (4) of the directive are
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the to be subject to such an assessment irrespective of
European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep whether those projects are likely to have a significant
voor het Bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and effect on an area of special conservation;
Industry) of 7 January 2003, received at the Court Registry on
4 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings — by authorising emissions in a special area of conser-
between Mr and Mrs T.H.J.M. van Schaijk and Directeur van vation, irrespective of whether they are likely to
de Rijksdienst voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees on the have a significant effect on that area;
following questions:

1. May a Member State derive from Community law the — by derogating from the scope of the provisions
power to decide to kill animals which are suspected of concerning the protection of species in the case of
being infected or contaminated with the foot-and-mouth certain non-deliberate effects on protected animals;
virus?
— by failing to ensure compliance with the criteria for
2. Does Directive 85/511/EEC (1), as amended by Directive derogation set out in Article 16 of the directive in
90/423/EEC (2), afford the Member States scope to (order the case of certain activities which are supposed to
or) take supplementary national measures to control foot- be compatible with conservation of an area;
and-mouth disease?
— by retaining provisions on the application of pestic-
3. What limits does Community law place on a Member ides which do not take sufficient account of the
State with regard to taking supplementary national protection of species;
measures other than those provided for in Directive 85/
511/EEC, as amended by Directive 90/423/EEC?
— by failing to notify fishery catch legislation and/or
to ensure that such legislation contains adequate
( 1) OJ L 315 [1985], p. 11. bans on fishing,
( 2) OJ L 224 [1990], p. 13.
the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
obligations under the directive.