This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2005/143/28
Case C-130/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrative Court for Trade and Industry by order of that court of 17 March 2005 in Coxon and Chatterton Limited v Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality
Case C-130/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrative Court for Trade and Industry by order of that court of 17 March 2005 in Coxon and Chatterton Limited v Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality
Case C-130/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrative Court for Trade and Industry by order of that court of 17 March 2005 in Coxon and Chatterton Limited v Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality
OJ C 143, 11.6.2005, p. 20–20
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
11.6.2005 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 143/20 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrative Court for Trade and Industry by order of that court of 17 March 2005 in Coxon and Chatterton Limited v Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality
(Case C-130/05)
(2005/C 143/28)
Language of the case: Dutch
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Administrative Court for Trade and Industry (Netherlands) of 17 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 21 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Coxon and Chatterton Limited and Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality on the following questions:
|
1. |
Must the introduction to and subparagraph (a) of Article 17(2) of Directive 97/78/EC (1) be so interpreted that the objection to the redispatch of a consignment that does not satisfy the import conditions lies in the non-satisfaction of the Community conditions for import or in the conditions that apply at the destination outside the territories listed in Annex I to Directive 97/78/EC agreed with the person responsible for the load? |
|
2. |
Must the introduction to and subparagraph (a) of Article 17(2) of Directive 97/78/EC, read in conjunction with Article 22(2) of Directive 97/78/EC and Article 5 of Regulation 2377/90/EEC (2), be so interpreted that in all cases in which any one of the checks provided for in Directive 97/78/EC indicates that a consignment of products is likely to constitute a danger to animal or human health this provision imperatively requires the destruction of the consignments of animal products concerned? |
|
3. |
Must Article 22 of Directive 97/78/EC, in conjunction with Article 5 of Regulation 2377/90/EEC, be so interpreted that the mere fact that residues of a substance listed in Annex V to Regulation 2377/90/EC are found in a consignment means that the consignment in question is likely to constitute such a danger to animal or human health as to preclude redispatch? |
|
4 |
If the second question is answered in the negative, must Article 17(2) of Directive 97/78/EC be so interpreted that it also serves to protect the interests of the third country into which, after redispatch, the consignment is to be imported, even if those interests do not also involve the protection of an interest that can be located in Member States of the EU? |
(1) Council Directive of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (OJ 1997 L 24, p. 9).
(2) Council Regulation of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (OJ L 224, p. 1).