Keywords
Summary

Keywords

1. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Export refunds – Conditions for granting

(Commission Regulation No 615/98, Arts 1 and 5(3) and 7; Council Directive 91/628, as amended by Directive 95/29)

2. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Export refunds – Conditions for granting

(Commission Regulation No 800/1999; Council Directive 91/628, as amended by Directive 95/29)

3. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Export refunds – Conditions for granting

(Council Regulation No 1254/1999, Art. 33(9); Council Directive 91/628, as amended by Directive 95/29, Annex, Chapter VI, point 47(B))

4. Community law – Action before the national courts – Application ex officio of a provision of Community law resulting in the disregarding of a national rule prohibiting reformatio in pejus – Obligation for the national courts – None

Summary

1. Regulation No 615/98 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport, and, in particular, Articles 1 and 5(3) and (7) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a national authority with competence for export refunds is empowered to decide that a transport of animals was not carried out in accordance with the provisions of Directive 91/628 on the protection of animals during transport, as amended by Directive 95/29, although, under Article 2(3) of that regulation, the official veterinarian had certified that that transport complied with the provisions of that directive. In order to reach that conclusion, that authority must rely on objective elements relating to the welfare of the animals such as to call into question the documents presented by the exporter, it being for the latter to show, in that case, that the elements relied on by the competent authority for its finding of non‑compliance with Directive 91/628, as amended by Directive 95/29, are irrelevant.

(see para. 32, operative part 1)

2. When assessing if a right to a refund exists in the situations provided for under Regulation No 800/1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, where a vessel has been authorised for the transport of animals in respect of a certain surface area by the Member State of registration of the vessel, the competent authority of the Member State of export must take that authorisation as a basis for assessing whether Community legislation on the welfare of animals during transport has been complied with.

In order to grant an authorisation, the competent authority of the Member State of registration must necessarily carry out detailed checks in order to calculate the total effective surface area of the vessel that is such as to ensure the welfare of the animals during transport. The surface area indicated in the authorisation must therefore be considered to represent the surface area within which the welfare of the animals is guaranteed.

(see paras 36, 38, operative part 2)

3. The notion of ‘compliance with the provisions established in Community legislation concerning animal welfare’ referred to in Article 33(9) of Regulation No 1254/1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, which makes payment of export refunds subject to compliance with those provisions, must be interpreted as meaning that, where it is established that the Community requirements relating to loading density laid down in Chapter VI, point 47(B), of the Annex to Directive 91/628 on the protection of animals during transport, as amended by Directive 95/29, were not complied with during the transport of the animals, it is necessary, in principle, to make a finding of non‑compliance with those provisions in respect of all the live animals transported.

(see para. 39, operative part 3)

4. Community law does not require national courts to apply, of their own motion, a provision of Community law where such application would lead them to deny the principle, enshrined in the relevant national law, of the prohibition of reformatio in pejus .

Such an obligation would be contrary not only to the principles of respect for the rights of the defence, legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations, which underlie the prohibition, but would expose an individual who brought an action against an act adversely affecting him to the risk that such an action would place him in a less favourable position than he would have been in, had he not brought that action.

(see paras 47-48, operative part 4)