Keywords
Summary

Keywords

1 Preliminary rulings - Assessment of validity - Whether an individual may rely before the national court on Articles 39 and 40(3) of the Treaty and the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination - Finding of invalidity of an act of the Community institutions - Lack of jurisdiction of national courts

(EC Treaty, Arts 39, 40(3) and 177)

2 Agriculture - Approximation of laws on health inspections - Directive 64/433 - Requirement of an ante-mortem inspection by an official veterinarian - Permissible

(EC Treaty, Arts 39 and 40(3); Council Directive 64/433, as amended and consolidated by Directive 91/497)

3 Agriculture - Approximation of laws on health inspections - Directive 64/433 - Costs of veterinary checks charged to slaughterhouses - Passed on to owners of meat - Permissible

(EC Treaty, Arts 39 and 40(3); Council Directive 64/433, as amended and consolidated by Directives 91/497, 85/73 and 93/118; Council Decision 88/408)

Summary

4 An individual may plead in proceedings before a national court an infringement of Articles 39 and 40(3) of the Treaty and of the general principles of proportionality and non-discrimination in order to challenge the validity of an act of the Community institutions.

In those circumstances, the national court may, and in certain circumstances must, seek a preliminary ruling from the Court on the validity of the act in the light of the Treaty rules. It may also consider the validity of a Community act and, if it considers that the grounds put forward before it by the parties in support of invalidity are unfounded, it may reject them, concluding that the measure is completely valid since, in so doing, it is not calling into question the existence of the Community measure.

On the other hand, the national courts do not have the power to declare acts of the Community institutions invalid. The main purpose of the powers accorded to the Court by Article 177 of the Treaty is to ensure that Community law is applied uniformly by the national courts. That requirement of uniformity is particularly imperative when the validity of a Community act is in issue. Divergences between courts in the Member States as to the validity of Community acts would be liable to place in jeopardy the very unity of the Community legal order and detract from the fundamental requirement of legal certainty.

5 Directive 64/433 on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in fresh meat, as amended and consolidated by Directive 91/497, is not invalid having regard to Articles 39 and 40(3) of the Treaty and the general principle of proportionality, in so far as it requires and/or permits Member States to require health inspections at slaughterhouses to be carried out by official veterinarians and/or in so far as it requires ante-mortem inspections to be carried out.

As regards Article 39 of the Treaty, the purpose of the directive, according to its preamble, is to facilitate trade between the Member States and accordingly to promote the objectives mentioned in that provision. As far as Article 40(3) of the Treaty is concerned, in view of the fact that the producers of fresh meat have, since the abolition of frontier checks, been in a comparable situation, it is appropriate for the directive to treat fresh meat in the same way from the veterinary point of view whether it is intended for intra-Community trade or for the domestic market. As regards, finally, the principle of proportionality, the provisions requiring both the intervention of an official veterinarian and an ante-mortem inspection are a result of the correct exercise of the discretionary power enjoyed by the Community legislature in determining policy in matters of agriculture.

6 The obligation under Directive 64/433 on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in fresh meat, as amended and consolidated by Council Directive 91/497, under Decision 88/408 on the levels of the fees to be charged for health inspections and controls of fresh meat pursuant to Directive 85/73, and under Directive 93/118 amending the latter, for the costs of health inspections by official veterinarians to be borne by the slaughterhouse at which the animals are to be slaughtered is not contrary either to Articles 39 and 40(3) of the Treaty or to the general principles of equal treatment and/or proportionality. The Community legislature did not exceed its discretion in relation to the common agricultural policy by making economic agents who prepare goods intended for sale in the Community responsible, in particular from the financial point of view, for guaranteeing compliance with the safety requirements applicable to such products.

Furthermore, the applicable provisions do not prevent slaughterhouses from passing on the costs of health inspections to the owners of the meat.