I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
(Case C-473/07)
(Pollution and nuisance - Directive 96/61/EC - Annex I - Subheading 6.6(a) - Intensive rearing of poultry - Definition - Meaning of ‘poultry’ - Maximum number of animals per installation)
(2009/C 69/13)
Language of the case: French
Applicants: Association nationale pour la protection des eaux et rivières — TOS, Association OABA
Defendant: Ministère de l'écologie, du développement et de l'aménagement durables
Intervener: Association France Nature Environnement
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'État (France) — Interpretation of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26) — Scope ratione materiae of the directive — Installations for the intensive rearing of poultry with more than 40 000 places (subject to an authorisation requirement) (subheading 6.6(a) of Annex I to the directive) — Concepts of ‘poultry’ and ‘places’ — Whether quail, partridge and pigeon are included within the scope of the directive — If so, whether national legislation which gives weighting to the number of animals per place according to species is permissible
The term ‘poultry’, which appears in subheading 6.6(a) of Annex I to Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, must be interpreted as including quails, partridges and pigeons.
(1)
OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.