Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2001:469
Date: 2001-09-20
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Fisheries policy;Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties;Veterinary legislation
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: United Kingdom

SUMMARY — JOINED CASES C-20/00 AND C-64/00 
Summary of the Judgment 
Community law — Principles — Fundamental rights — Right to property — Restric­
tions — Whether permissible — Conditions —· Minimum measures for the control of 
certain fish diseases — Directive 93/53 — Compensation for affected owners — 
None — Compatibility with the right to property — Fish owner's fault — Not relevant 
(Council Directives 91/67, as amended by Annex A to Directive 93/54, and 93/53) 
The fundamental rights protected by the 
Court, of which right to property is one, 
are not absolute rights but must be con­
sidered in relation to their social function. 
Consequently, restrictions may be imposed 
on the exercise of those rights, in particular 
in the context of a common organisation of 
the markets, provided that those restric­
tions in fact correspond to objectives of 
general interest pursued by the Community 
and do not constitute, with regard to the 
aim pursued, a disproportionate and intol­
erable interference, impairing the very sub­
stance of those rights. 
Directive 93/53 introducing minimum 
Community measures for the control of 
certain fish diseases seeks to contribute to 
the completion of the internal market in 
aquaculture animals and products and 
forms part of a regime intended to intro­
duce minimum Community measures for 
the control of certain fish diseases. Accord­
ingly, the measures which that directive 
imposes are in conformity with objectives 
of general interest pursued by the Commu­
nity. 
Taking into account the objective sought, 
the minimum measures of immediate 
destruction and slaughter laid down by 
Directive 93/53 in order to control the 
diseases in List I in Annex A to Directive 
91/67 concerning the animal health con­
ditions governing the placing on the market 
of aquaculture animals and products, as 
amended by Directive 93/54, do not con­
stitute, in the absence of compensation for 
affected owners, a disproportionate and 
intolerable interference impairing the very 
substance of the right to property. 
First of all, the measures laid down by 
Directive 93/53 are urgent and are intended 
to guarantee that effective action is imple­
mented as soon as the presence of a disease 
is confirmed and to eliminate any risk of 
the spread or survival of the pathogen. 
I - 7412 
BOOKER AQUACULTURE AND HYDRO SEAFOOD 
Further, the measures referred to do not 
deprive farm owners of the use of their fish 
farms, but enable them to continue to carry 
on their activities there. In effect, the 
immediate destruction and slaughter of all 
the fish enable owners to restock the 
affected farms as soon as possible. Those 
measures therefore enable the resumption 
of the transportation and placing on the 
market in the Community of species of live 
fish susceptible to the diseases in Lists I and 
II in Annex A to Directive 91/67, with the 
result that all interested parties, including 
fish farm owners, may benefit as a result. 
Finally, fish farmers carry on a business 
which carries commercial risks. As farmers, 
they can expect that a fish disease may 
break out at any moment and cause them 
loss. Such risk is inherent in the business of 
raising and selling livestock and is the 
consequence of a natural occurrence, so 
far as the diseases in both List I and List II 
in Annex A to Directive 91/67 are con­
cerned. 
As to the extent of any loss, by reason of 
their condition, fish which show clinical 
signs of disease have no marketable value. 
So far as concerns fish which have reached 
a commercial size and could have been 
marketed or processed for human con­
sumption since they were not showing, 
when slaughtered, any clinical sign of 
disease, any loss eventually suffered by 
farmers by reason of the immediate 
slaughter of that kind of fish arises from 
the fact that they have been unable to 
choose the most advantageous time for 
their sale. In fact, because of the risk of 
their presenting clinical signs of disease in 
future, it is impossible to determine a more 
advantageous time for their sale. So far as 
all other types of fish are concerned, it is 
not possible to establish whether they have 
any marketable value either, because of the 
risk that in the future they will develop 
clinical signs of disease. 
Admittedly, the Community legislature 
may consider, in the context of its broad 
discretion in the field of agricultural policy, 
that full or partial compensation is appro­
priate for owners of farms on which 
animals have been destroyed and slaught­
ered. Nonetheless, the existence, in Com­
munity law, of a general principle requiring 
compensation to be paid in all circum­
stances cannot be inferred from that fact. 
Having regard to those same consider­
ations, the measures for the immediate 
destruction and slaughter of fish imple­
mented by a Member State in order to 
control List I and II diseases in the context 
of the application of Directive 93/53, which 
are, respectively, identical and similar to 
I - 7413 
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES C-20/00 AND C-64/00 
the minimum measures which the Commu­
nity has laid down for List I diseases and 
which do not provide for compensation, 
are not incompatible with the fundamental 
right to property. 
The fact that the outbreak of the disease is 
due or not due to the fish owner's fault has 
no bearing on the compatibility with the 
fundamental right to property of those 
national measures. 
(see paras 68, 78-83, 84-86, 93, 
95, operative parts 1-3) 
I - 7414