EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62017CJ0169

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 June 2018.
Asociación Nacional de Productores de Ganado Porcino v Administración del Estado.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 34 and 35 TFEU — Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect — Protection of pigs — Products processed or marketed in Spain — Quality standards for meat, ham, shoulder ham and loin derived from Iberian pigs — Conditions for using the ‘de cebo’ designation — Improvement of the quality of products — Directive 2008/120/EC — Scope.
Case C-169/17.

Case C‑169/17

Asociación Nacional de Productores de Ganado Porcino

v

Administración del Estado

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 34 and 35 TFEU — Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect — Protection of pigs — Products processed or marketed in Spain — Quality standards for meat, ham, shoulder ham and loin derived from Iberian pigs — Conditions for using the ‘de cebo’ designation — Improvement of the quality of products — Directive 2008/120/EC — Scope)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 14 June 2018

  1. Free movement of goods—Quantitative restrictions—Measures having equivalent effect—National legislation reserving certain trade descriptions to Iberian pig products that comply with certain conditions—Presence of mutual recognition clause for products from other Member States—Lawfulness

    (Arts 34 TFEU and 35 TFEU)

  2. Agriculture—Approximation of laws—Protection of pigs—Directive 2008/120—Rearing conditions—National legislation reserving certain trade descriptions to Iberian pig products that comply with certain conditions—Rearing conditions more stringent than those laid down in that directive with the objective of improving the quality of the products—Legislation outside the scope of that directive

    (Council Directive 2008/120, Arts 3(1)(a) and 12)

  1.  Articles 34 and 35 TFEU must be interpreted as follows:

    Article 34 TFEU does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the sales designation ‘ibérico de cebo’ may be granted only to products that comply with certain conditions imposed by that legislation, since that legislation permits the importation and marketing of products from Member States other than the State that adopted the legislation at issue, under the designations they bear pursuant to the rules of the Member State of origin, even if they are similar, comparable or identical to the designations provided for in the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings.

    Article 35 TFEU does not preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

    (see paras 28, 31, operative part1)

  2.  Article 3(1)(a) of Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs, read in conjunction with Article 12 of that directive, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, providing that the use of certain sales designations for Iberian pig products processed or marketed in Spain is subject to producers complying with conditions for the rearing of Iberian pigs that are more stringent than those laid down in Article 3(1)(a) as well as a condition imposing a minimum slaughter age of 10 months.

    However, it should be noted that the objective of the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings is not the protection of pigs, but rather the improvement of the quality of the products. Consequently, Royal Decree 4/2014 does not fall within the scope of Directive 2008/120.

    Nevertheless, by increasing both the minimum unobstructed floor area available to each animal and the minimum slaughter age, that legislation is not liable to compromise the welfare of the animals and is therefore not incompatible with that directive.

    (see paras 34, 35, 36, operative part 2)

Top