Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2013:661
Date: 2013-10-17
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Fundamental rights;Charter of Fundamental Rights
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 17 October 2013 1. Agriculture — Approximation of laws on animal health — Veterinary and zootechnical checks in intra-Community trade in live animals and products of animal origin — System for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals — Obligation of individual electronic identification — Obligation to keep a holding register — No infringement of Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 16; Council Regulation No 21/2004, Arts 3(1), 4(2), 5(1), 9(3), first subpara. and Annex, point B(2)) 2. EU law — Principles — Proportionality — Scope — Discretionary powers of the EU legislature in matters concerning the common agricultural policy — Judicial review — Limits — Assessment in the light of the information available at the time of adoption of the act (Arts 40 TFEU to 43 TFEU) 3. EU law — Principles — Equal treatment — Different treatment objectively justified — Criteria for assessment — Application to a legislative act of the Union (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 20) 1. The consideration Articles 3(1), 4(2), 5(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 9(3) and point B(2) of the Annex to Regulation No 21/2004 establishing a system for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals and amending Regulation No 1782/2003 and Directives 92/102 and 64/432, provisions that impose on keepers of sheep and goats obligations regarding an individual electronic identification of the animals and the keeping of a holding register, disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect their validity, in the light of the freedom to conduct a business as enshrined in Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Although those provisions, with regard to persons breeding animals for commercial purposes, may limit the exercise of the freedom to conduct a business, that freedom itself is not absolute. It may be subject to a broad range of interventions on the part of public authorities which may limit the exercise of economic activity in the public interest. In that regard, health protection, the control of epizootic diseases and the welfare of animals, objectives which overlap, constitute legitimate objectives in the public interest pursued by EU legislation, as well as the completion in the sector concerned of the agricultural internal market. The obligations of the system established by Regulation No 21/2004 are appropriate to achieve the objective of controlling epizootic diseases and no factor has been found that could call into question the overall effectiveness of that system. Since those obligations are necessary to achieve the aims pursued by that regulation and the EU legislature could legitimately impose them and consider that the disadvantages resulting from those obligations are not disproportionate to the objectives pursued by Regulation No 21/2004, the EU legislature did not commit an error when considering the advantages and disadvantages of those contested obligations with regard to all the interests involved and, therefore, it did not infringe the freedom of keepers of sheep and goats to conduct a business. (see paras 26, 28, 35, 42, 59, 75, operative part) 2. The principle of proportionality requires that measures adopted by EU institutions do not exceed the limits of what is appropriate and necessary in order to attain the objectives legitimately pursued by the legislation in question; when there is a choice between several appropriate measures, recourse must be had to the least onerous, and the disadvantages caused must not be disproportionate to the aims pursued. The Court, when it assesses the proportionality of the measures implemented by the provisions of a regulation, accepts that the EU legislature, in the exercise of the powers conferred on it, must be allowed a broad discretion in areas which involve, on its part, political, economic and social choices and in which it is called upon to undertake complex assessments. In the area of agriculture, the EU legislature enjoys, inter alia, such a broad discretion, corresponding to the political responsibilities given to it by Articles 40 TFEU to 43 TFEU. Consequently, review by the Court is limited to verifying whether that legislature has manifestly exceeded the limits of its discretion. Indeed, even though it has such a discretion, the EU legislature must base its choice on objective criteria and, in assessing the burdens associated with various possible measures, it must examine whether the objectives pursued by the measure chosen are such as to justify even substantial negative consequences for certain economic operators. However, the validity of a European Union measure must be assessed on the basis of the facts and the law as they stood at the time when the measure was adopted and cannot depend on retrospective assessments of its efficacy. Where the EU legislature is obliged to assess the future effects of rules to be adopted and those effects cannot be accurately foreseen, its assessment is open to criticism only if it appears to have been manifestly incorrect in the light of the information available to the legislature at the time of the adoption of the rules in question. (see paras 29, 47-50) 3. Equality before the law, set out in Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, is a general principle of EU law that requires that similar situations shall not be treated differently and that different situations shall not be treated in the same manner unless such different treatment is objectively justified. A difference in treatment is justified if it is based on an objective and reasonable criterion, that is, if the difference relates to a legally permitted aim pursued by the legislation in question, and it is proportionate to the aim pursued by the treatment at issue. Where an EU legislative act is concerned, it is for the EU legislature to demonstrate the existence of objective criteria put forward as justification and to provide the Court with the necessary information for it to verify that those criteria do exist. (see paras 76-78)