Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2016:169
Date: 2016-03-16
Language of the case: German
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Eggs and poultry
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 30 June 2016 1. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Poultrymeat — Marketing standards — Labelling scheme — Obligation to indicate the total price and the price per weight unit on the pre-packaging or on a label attached at the time of sale of the fresh meat — No disproportionate restriction on the freedom to conduct a business (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 16; Council Regulation No 1234/2007; Commission Regulation No 543/2008, Art. 5(4)(b)) 2. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Poultrymeat — Marketing standards — Labelling scheme — Obligation to indicate the total price and the price per weight unit on the pre-packaging or on a label attached at the time of sale of the fresh meat — No infringement of principle of non-discrimination (Art. 40(2), first and second paras, TFEU; Council Regulation No 1234/2007; Commission Regulation No 543/2008, Art. 5(4)(b)) 3. EU law — Principles — Non-discrimination — Application in the context of the common agricultural policy — Discretion of the European Union legislature — Judicial review — Limits (Art. 40(2), second para., TFEU) 1. Article 5(4)(b) of Regulation No 543/2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 1234/2007 as regards the marketing standards for poultry meat is valid in the light of the freedom to conduct a business, as provided by Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Although the labelling obligation laid down in that article is liable to limit the exercise of the freedom to conduct a business, since such an obligation constrains its addressee in a manner which restricts the free use of the resources at his disposal because it obliges him to take measures which may represent a significant cost for him and have a considerable impact on the organisation of his activities, the freedom to conduct a business is not absolute, but must be viewed in relation to its social function. As regards the ability of the labelling obligation to attain the objectives pursued by the EU legislation, the legislature may consider that that obligation, on the one hand, ensures reliable information for the consumer as a result of the indication on the packaging, and, on the other, is likely to encourage consumers to buy poultrymeat, which improves the marketing prospects for that product and, consequently, producers’ incomes. As regards the necessity of such legislation, the EU legislature may legitimately consider that legislation providing for the mere affixing of prices on shelves may not achieve the objectives pursued in a way as effective as Article 5(4)(b) of Regulation No 543/2008, since solely the indication of the total price and the price per weight unit enables, in the case of products whose packaging units may not have the same weight, adequate consumer information to be guaranteed. Such an obligation does not, moreover, appear disproportionate to the aims pursued, in particular as the indication of the total price and the price per weight unit, laid down by Article 5(4) of Regulation No 543/2008, is only one part of the information having to be included on the pre-packaging or on a label attached thereto under that provision. (see paras 29, 30, 38, 39, 41, operative part 1) 2. Article 5(4)(b) of Regulation No 543/2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 1234/2007 as regards the marketing standards for poultry meat is valid in the light of the principle of non-discrimination referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 40(2) TFEU. Although, for other categories of fresh meat for human consumption there is no similar requirement in terms of price labelling, the fact remains that those products belong to different agricultural sectors. In that regard, the first subparagraph of Article 40(2) TFEU provides for the use of different mechanisms which may be used to achieve the objectives defined in Article 39 TFEU. Moreover, as is apparent from Regulation No 1234/2007, each common organisation of the market embodies features specific to it. As a result, a comparison of the technical rules and procedures adopted in order to regulate the various sectors of the market cannot constitute a valid basis for the purpose of proving the complaint of discrimination between dissimilar products which are subject to different rules. (see paras 43, 48-50, operative part 2) 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 44-47)