30.8.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/5


Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Salzburg Aigen, Austria) — Schwaninger Martin Viehhandel — Viehexport v Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen

(Case C-207/06) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 615/98 - Export refunds - Welfare of live bovine animals during transport - Directive 91/628/EEC - Applicability of the rules relating to the protection of animals during transport - Rules relating to journey times and rest periods and to the transportation of bovine animals by sea to a destination outside of the Community - Feeding and watering of the animals during the journey)

(2008/C 223/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Salzburg Aigen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Schwaninger Martin Viehhandel — Viehexport

Defendant: Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Finanzsenat (Austria) — Interpretation of Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport (OJ 1998 L 82, p. 19) and Chapter VII 48 point 7(a) and (b) of the annex to Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC (OJ 1991 L 340, p. 17) and the second indent of Article 5A point 2(d)(ii) of that directive — Applicability of animal welfare legislation in relation to journey times and rest periods when transporting bovine animals by sea to a destination outside of the Community in a vehicle loaded on to a ferry without unloading the animals — Failure to state in the route plan the times at which the animals transported were fed and watered during the journey

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport cannot be interpreted as meaning that point 48(7)(b) of the annex to Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995, must be applied to the case of transport by sea on a link between a geographical point of the European Community and a geographical point in a third country by means of vehicles loaded onto vessels without unloading of the animals.

2.

Point 48(7)(a) of the annex to Directive 91/628, as amended by Directive 95/29, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of transport by sea between a geographical point of the European Community and a geographical point situated in a third country by means of vehicles loaded onto vessels without unloading the animals, the duration of the transport does not have to be taken into account if the animals are transported in accordance with the conditions laid down in point 48(3) and (4) of the annex to Directive 91/628, apart from journey times and rest periods. If that is the case, a further period of transport by road may begin immediately after unloading the lorry at the port of destination in the third country, in accordance with point 48(4)(d).

3.

A route plan containing a pre-typed statement indicating that during the ferry journey animals are fed and watered ‘in the evenings and mornings, at midday, and in the evenings and mornings’ may satisfy the requirements of Directive 91/628, as amended by Directive 95/29, provided that it is established that the animals were in fact fed and watered as stated. If the competent authority considers, in the light of all the documents submitted by the exporter, that the requirements of that directive have not been complied with, it is for that authority to assess whether that non compliance had an effect on the welfare of the animals, whether such non compliance may, where appropriate, be remedied and whether it must result in the export refund being forfeited, reduced or retained.


(1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006.