Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 3 May 2023 – Asociația Crescătorilor de Vaci ‘Bălțată Românească’ Tip Simmental v Genetica din Transilvania Cooperativă Agricolă and Agenția Națională pentru Zootehnie ‘Prof. dr. G.K. Constantinescu’

(Case C-286/23, Asociația Crescătorilor de Vaci ‘Bălțată Românească’ Tip Simmental)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Brașov

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asociația Crescătorilor de Vaci ‘Bălțată Românească’ Tip Simmental

Defendants: Genetica din Transilvania Cooperativă Agricolă and Agenția Națională pentru Zootehnie ‘Prof. dr. G.K. Constantinescu’

Questions referred

Should Article 4(3)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1012, ¹ read in conjunction with point A(4) of Part 1 of Annex I to that regulation, as well as recital 24 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that a breed society may be recognised even if its intention is merely to attract breeders who are already entered in another approved breeding programme of another society, by signing applications or undertakings to that effect, or is it necessary that, on the date that the application for recognition is submitted, those breeders actually form part of the portfolio of the society requesting recognition?

Should Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1012 and point B(2)(a) of Part 1 of Annex I to [that regulation], read in conjunction with recital 24 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that breeders are free to choose the programmes for the improvement of the breed in which to enter their purebred breeding animals and, if so, may that freedom be restricted by the need to avoid prejudicing or compromising a breeding programme in which those breeders are already participating, as a result of those breeders transferring or undertaking to transfer to another breeding programme which is yet to be approved?

Should Article 10(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1012, read in conjunction with recital 21 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that, when one of the conditions described in points (a) to (c) of Article 10(1) of that regulation is satisfied, the competent authority which has recognised the breed society is obliged to refuse to approve a breeding programme that would compromise another breeding programme as regards the aspects referred to in [that article], or does the use of the expression ‘… may refuse …’ mean that the authority is afforded a margin of discretion in that regard?

Should Articles 8 and 10 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1012, read in conjunction with recital 21 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that, where a breeding programme whose main objective is the improvement of the breed is already being implemented in a Member State, it is permissible for a new breeding programme to be approved in the same State (the same geographical area) for the same breed, the main objective of which is also the improvement of the breed, as part of which breeding animals participating in the breeding programme already being implemented may be selected?

____________

¹ Regulation (EU) 2016/1012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on zootechnical and genealogical conditions for the breeding, trade in and entry into the Union of purebred breeding animals, hybrid breeding pigs and the germinal products thereof and amending Regulation (EU) No 652/2014, Council Directives 89/608/EEC and 90/425/EEC and repealing certain acts in the area of animal breeding (‘Animal Breeding Regulation’) (OJ 2016 L 171, p. 66).