Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:1997:365
Date: 1997-07-15
Language of the case: English
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Beef and veal;Free movement of goods;Measures having equivalent effect;Quantitative restrictions;Veterinary legislation
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: United Kingdom

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Agriculture — Approximation of Uws — Minimum standards for the protection of calves — 
Directive 91/629 — Validity — Compliance with the European Convention on the Protection 
of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes and the Recommendation concerning Cattle — No 
effect 
(Council Directive 91/629; Council Decision 78/923) 
I - 1251 
SUMMARY — CASE C-1/96 
2. Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions on exports — Measures restricting the 
export of live calves with a view to preventing them from being reared in systems which are 
prohibited in the exporting Member State but comply with the relevant directive — Justifica­
tion — Grounds of public morality and public policy — Protection of the health and life of 
animals — No such justification 
(EC Treaty, Art. 36; Council Directive 91/629; Council Decision 78/923) 
1. The validity of Directive 91/629 laying 
down minimum standards for the protec­
tion of calves cannot be affected by the 
fact that it is inconsistent with the 1976 
European Convention on the Protection 
of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes, 
approved on behalf of the Community by 
Decision 78/923, and with the 1988 Rec­
ommendation concerning Cattle, drawn 
up to apply the principles of the Conven­
tion. 
As far as the Convention is concerned, 
the concern expressed therein to make the 
Contracting Parties aware of the need to 
maintain rearing conditions which respect 
the well-being of animals in vital areas is 
not followed up by the definition of stan­
dards non-observance of which could 
affect the validity of the directive. It is 
clear from the very wording of its provi­
sions that they are indicative only and are 
limited to providing for the elaboration 
of recommendations to the Contracting 
Parties with a view to application of the 
principles which they set out. 
As far as the Recommendation is con­
cerned, it is not directly applicable in the 
national law of the Contracting Parties 
and, even if its provisions may be more 
precise than those of the Convention, a 
document of that kind nevertheless does 
not contain legally binding obligations 
for the Contracting Parties and therefore 
for the Community. 
2. A Member State which observes the 1988 
Recommendation concerning Cattle, 
drawn up to apply the principles of the 
1976 European Convention on the Pro­
tection of Animals Kept for Farming Pur­
poses which was approved on behalf of 
the Community by Decision 78/923, can­
not rely on Article 36 of the Treaty and, 
in particular, on the grounds of public 
morality, public policy and/or the protec­
tion of the health or life of animals laid 
down therein, in order to justify restric­
tions on the export of live calves with a 
view to preventing those calves from 
being reared in the veal crate systems 
used in other Member States which have 
implemented Directive 91/629 laying 
down minimum standards for the protec­
tion of calves, but which do not observe 
that Recommendation. 
While Article 36 allows the maintenance 
of restrictions on the free movement of 
I - 1252 
R v MAFF, EX PARTE COMPASSION IN WORLD FARMING 
goods justified on the abovementioned 
grounds, which constitute fundamental 
requirements recognised by Community 
law, recourse to that article is nevertheless 
no longer possible where Community 
directives provide for harmonisation of 
the measures necessary to achieve the 
specific objective which would be fur­
thered by such recourse. 
That is precisely the case as regards the 
protection of the health of calves, which 
constitutes the specific objective of the 
harmonisation undertaken by the said 
directive, because that directive exhaus­
tively lays down minimum common stan­
dards for the protection of calves con­
fined for the purposes of rearing and 
fattening, and it can be no objection to 
argue that, under Article 11(2) of the 
directive, the Member States may main­
tain or apply within their territories 
stricter provisions for the protection of 
calves than those laid down in the direc­
tive. 
As for the protection of public policy or 
public morality which, by contrast, are 
not the subject of the directive, reliance 
on Article 36 is ruled out in so far as, 
first, public policy and public morality 
are not invoked as a separate justification 
but are an aspect of the justification relat­
ing to the protection of animal health 
and, secondly, a Member State cannot 
rely on the views or the behaviour of a 
section of national public opinion in 
order unilaterally to challenge a harmon­
ising measure adopted by the Commu­
nity institutions. 
I - 1253