By a Decision of 27 March 1996, the Commission prohibited the exportation of meat and meat
products derived from bovine animals slaughtered in the United Kingdom to other Member
States and non-member countries.
In March 1998, the Council lifted the ban, subject to strict conditions, for certain meat and meat
products derived from bovine animals slaughtered in Northern Ireland.
By a Decision of 25 November 1998, the Commission adopted the principle of permitting the
export of bovine products under a Date Based Export Scheme (DBES). Pursuant to that
Decision, the Commission, by its Decision of 23 July 1999, set the date of 1 August 1999 as the
date from which the export of bovine meat products from the United Kingdom could
recommence.
The French authorities, after consulting AFFSA (Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des
Aliments) considered that the risk of contamination of bovine animals from other routes than the
two known routes, namely feed and maternal transmission, could not be ruled out.
In those circumstances, and despite an opinion of the Scientific Steering Committee referred to
by the Commission, France did not lift its ban.
The Commission therefore brought an action before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 4 January 2000 for a declaration that France had failed to fulfil its Community
obligations by not applying the Commission's Decision.
The Commission is supported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The hearing in this case will take place on Tuesday 19 June before a plenary session of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities.
A document is attached summarising the principal cases concerning BSE that the Court of Justice has dealt with.
Cases C-365/99: pending
Portugal v Commission (C-365/99)
Request for partial annulment of Commission Decision 99/517/EC of 28 July 1999, amending
Decision 98/653/EC concerning emergency measures made necessary by the occurrence of BSE
in Portugal (extension from 1 August 1999 to 1 February 2000 of restrictions on the export of
products derived from bovine animals slaughtered in Portugal).
Case C-428/99: pending
H. van den Bor BV v Voedselvoorzieningsin-en verkoopbureau
Reference for a preliminary ruling. Competence of a Member State, pending enactment of
Community rules on the matter, to provide for compensation to be paid in respect of loss suffered
as a result of the slaughter of calves originating in the United Kingdom.
Case C-507/99: pending
Denkavit Nederland BV v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij and
Voedselvoorzieningsin-en verkoopbureau.
Reference for a preliminary ruling. Whether or not a basis is required in Community law for a
national decision ordering the slaughter of calves originating in the United Kingdom, the
purchase of which by the national authorities, for the purposes of destruction, was authorised by
Commission Regulation (EC) No 717/96 of 19 April 1996 adopting exceptional support
measures for the beef and veal market in Belgium, France and the Netherlands.
Case C-514/99: action declared inadmissible by the Court on 21 June 1999
French Republic v Commission of the European Communities
Request for the annulment of the Commission's decision refusing to modify or cancel
Commission Decision 99/514/EC.
The action was brought against an implicit decision of refusal in a statement made on 29 October
1999 by Mr Commissioner Byrne. The Court considered that such a statement did not constitute
the taking of a position by the Commission and could not therefore be regarded as the expression
of a Commission decision refusing to amend its earlier position.
Indeed, the Commission had not previously received an express request for the amendment of
Decision 99/514, but had merely received some allegedly new evidence which might alter the
legal and factual context taken into consideration.
The Court stated that if France considered that the information in question gave rise to an
obligation on the Commission to adopt a fresh decision, it was for France to follow the procedure
for failure to act established by the Treaty (Article 232 EC).
Cases C-157/96 and C-180/96 and C-180/96: on 5 May 1998, the Court confirmed the
validity of emergency measures taken by the Commission against BSE (Decision 96/239 of
27 March 1996).
The Queen v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte National Farmers' Union a.o.
United Kingdom v Commission of the European Communities
The Court held that the Commission had the power to take measures of this kind, since the
Directives concerned allowed it to interevene rapidly in order to prevent the spread of a diseaseaffecting animals or a threat to human health. There was no evidence to support the argument
that the Coimmission's sole or main purpose was to allay consumer concern or to support the beef
sector (an economic end) rather than the protection of health; therefore there was no misuse of
power.
Finally, where there is uncertainty as to the existence or extent of risks to human health, the
Court considers that the institutions may take protective measures without having to wait until
the reality and seriousness of those risks become fully apparent. According to the Court, the
Commission displayed due caution by imposing a general ban on exports of bovine animals,
bovine meat and derived products while waiting for more detailed scientific information.
Case C-477/98: on 5 December 2000 the Court held that the United Kingdom could prohibit
imports of bovine heads from other Member States
Eurostock Meat Marketing Ltd and Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland.
The Court considered that this precautionary measure was justified bearing in mind the BSE risks
posed by those materials, while waiting for a Commission Decision prohibiting the use of those
materials to be applied.
Available in all the official languages.
For further information please contact Fionnuala Connolly |
Name:
|
|
Press Agency / Organisation:
|
|
Contact number (Tel):
|
(Fax): |
Number of persons: |
|
Do you seek authorisation to photograph? (Please delete as appropriate) Yes No |
|
Do you seek authorisation to film? (Please delete as appropriate) Yes No |
In principle, your application will be accepted, unless you are otherwise informed by the Court.