A 1985 Council directive prescribes measures to combat foot-and-mouth disease. It lays down the principle of a ban on vaccination, but permits emergency vaccination limited to certain geographical areas1. A decision to introduce emergency vaccination is taken by the Commission in collaboration with the Member State concerned.

Ms Jippes, who resides at Yde (Netherlands), lives outside the vaccination areas specified by a Commission decision of 27 March 2001, which lays down, pursuant to the Community directive, the conditions for the control and eradication of foot-and-mouth disease in the Netherlands.2

Ms Jippes requested the Netherlands Minister of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries to grant an exemption from the ban on vaccination. Having received no response, she submitted a complaint and applied to the President of the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and Industry) for leave to vaccinate her animals.

At the request of the national court, the Minister finally adopted a decision on Ms Jippes' complaint. He considered that she was not entitled to arrange for her animals to be given thesame treatment as that reserved for animals kept in zoos, which may in certain circumstances qualify for vaccination.

Ms Jippes is relying on the European Convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, dated 10 March 1976. In her view, the Community Directive does not accord with the provisions of that convention, under which animals are to be "housed and provided with food, water and care in a manner which ... is appropriate to their physiological ... needs".

The Minister considers that the wording of the Convention is not such as to impose any binding obligations within the meaning of the Netherlands Constitution.

The national court has requested the Court of Justice to rule on the compatibility with Community law (in particular, the principle of proportionality) of the vaccination ban imposed by the directive, and on the validity of the way in which it has been applied by the Commission in its decision concerning the Netherlands.

Accelerated procedure applied for the first time in the context of a reference for a preliminary ruling

Pursuant to the amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice which entered into force on 1 February 2001, the President may decide, on a recommendation by the Judge- Rapporteur and after hearing the Advocate General, to apply an accelerated procedure to a reference for a preliminary ruling (Article 104a of the Rules of Procedure).

Prior to 1 February 2001, recourse to an accelerated procedure was possible only in direct actions.

In order for leave to be granted for the application of an accelerated procedure, two conditions must be fulfilled:

(1)    the accelerated procedure must be requested by the national court;
(2)    the circumstances referred to must establish that a ruling on the question put to the Court is required as a matter of exceptional urgency.

In the present case, the President has decided for the first time that the questions referred should be determined by way of an accelerated procedure.

The hearing in the present proceedings, which were brought on 27 April 2001, will take place in plenary session at 9.30 a.m. on 20 June 2001 in the Grande Salle d'Audience.

If you wish to attend the hearing, please send us the attached accreditation form.