Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2001:292
Date: 2001-05-29
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Veterinary legislation
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - successful
Origin: France;Provisional data;United States

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Procedure — Intervention — Application in support of the form of order sought by 
one of the parties but relying on a different argument 
(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 37, fourth para.) 
I - 1 
SUMMARY — CASE C-248/99 P 
2. Appeals — Grounds — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissible 
(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, first para.; Rules of Procedure 
of the Court of justice, Art. 112(l)(c)) 
3. Agriculture — Uniform legislation — Maximum residue limits of veterinary medici­
nal products in foodstuffs of animal origin — Trocedme for establishing limits — 
Regulation No 2377/90 — Refusal of an application to include a recombinant bovine 
somatotrophin in the list of substances not subject to a maximum residue limit — 
Account taken of a prohibition on placing that substance on the market — Whether 
permissible 
(Council Regulation No 2377/90, Art. 6(1); Council Directives 81/851, Art. 4(2)(b), 
87/22 and 90/676) 
4. Agriculture — Uniform legislation — Maximum residue limits of veterinary medici­
nal products in foodstuffs of animal origin — Procedure for establishing limits — 
Regulation No 2377/90 — Commission's powers 
(Council Regulation No 2377/90, Art. 6) 
1. The fourth paragraph of Article 37 of 
the Statute of the Court of Justice, 
which is applicable to the Court of 
First Instance by virtue of Article 46 of 
that Statute, does not preclude an 
intervener from using arguments dif­
ferent from those used by the party it is 
supporting, provided that the inter­
vener seeks to support that party's 
submissions. 
(see para. 56) 
2. It follows from Article 225 EC, the first 
paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute 
of the Cour t of Just ice and 
Article 112(l)(c) of the Rules of Pro­
cedure of the Court of Justice that an 
appeal must indicate precisely the con­
tested elements of the judgment which 
the appellant seeks to have set aside 
and also the legal arguments specifi­
cally advanced in support of the 
appeal. 
An appeal which does not state which 
grounds of the contested judgment, 
taken from another judgment, are viti­
ated by an error of law and does not 
indicate in any way the extent to which 
the new factors which it raises could 
have had the slightest bearing on those 
grounds does not satisfy that require­
ment. 
(see paras 68-69) 
I - 2 
FRANCE v MONSANTO AND COMMISSION 
3. The Commission was right, in the 
context of the Community procedure 
for the establishment of maximum 
residue limits (MRLs) of veterinary 
medicinal products in foodstuffs of 
animal origin laid down by Regulation 
No 2377/90, to refuse an application to 
include a recombinant bovine somatot-
rophin (BST) in the list of substances 
not subject to an MRL contained in 
Annex II submitted pursuant to 
Article 6(1) of the regulation, taking 
into account the ban on issuing a 
marketing authorisation with a view 
to the marketing or administration of 
BST to dairy cows resulting from 
Decision 90/218, as amended by 
Decision 94/936, inasmuch as the 
effect of that decision was that the 
condition that the product be marketed 
laid down in the second indent of 
Article 6(1) of Regulation No 2377/90 
had not been fulfilled. 
On the one hand it follows from 
Article 4(2)(b) of Directive 81/851 on 
the approximation of the laws of the 
Member States relating to veterinary 
medicinal products, as amended by 
Directive 90/676, from Directive 87/22 
on the approximation of national 
measures relating to the placing on 
the market of high-technology medici­
nal products, and from Article 6(1) of 
Regulation No 2377/90 that the pro­
cedures for establishing MRLs and 
issuing marketing authorisations are 
inherently linked, inasmuch as a mar­
keting authorisation will not be issued 
in respect of a veterinary medicinal 
product for administration to food-
producing animals unless an MRL has 
been established, and, by the same 
token, an MRL will not be established 
for a new pharmacologically active 
substance unless that substance is 
intended to be placed on the market. 
On the other hand, it is self-evident 
that, when applying a regulation, the 
Commission may take other provisions 
of Community law into account. That 
is a fortiori the position in the present 
case, since the second indent of 
Article 6(1) of Regulation No 2377/90 
makes the marketing of the product 
one of the conditions for procuring the 
establishment of an MRL. 
(see paras 80, 82-84) 
4. Where, in the context of the Commu­
nity procedure for the establishment of 
maximum residue limits of veterinary 
medicinal products in foodstuffs of 
animal origin laid down by Regulation 
No 2377/90, one of the conditions for 
procuring the establishment of a maxi­
mum residue limit has not been fulfil­
led, the Commission is entitled to defer 
consideration of the request or even to 
refuse it. 
Such a decision may be adopted by the 
Commission pursuant to the principle 
of sound administration and the duty 
of care, after the interests of all the 
parties concerned have been weighed, 
I - 3 
SUMMARY — CASE C-248/99 P 
namely, on the one hand, the interest of 
the institution in not having to follow a 
highly burdensome decision-making 
procedure involving reference to the 
Regulatory Committee, where the mar­
keting authorisation cannot yet be 
issued and should not be issued in the 
short term, and, on the other hand, the 
legitimate interest of an undertaking in 
not having to delay the implementation 
of its marketing plans in the expec­
tation that a moratorium on the mar­
keting of the product in question may 
soon be lifted. 
(see paras 91-92) 
I - 4