Summary;Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2024:655
Date: 2024-07-29
Language of the case: Romanian
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Romania

Summary C-286/23 – 1 
Case C-286/23 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
3 May 2023 
Referring court: 
Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
10 April 2023 
Applicant: 
Asociația Crescătorilor de Vaci ‘Bălțată Românească’ Tip 
Simmental 
Defendants: 
Genetica din Transilvania Cooperativă Agricolă 
Agenția Națională pentru Zootehnie ‘Prof. dr. G.K. Constantinescu’ 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Action for annulment of the decision recognising the defendant Genetica din 
Transilvania Cooperativă Agricolă (‘Genetica’) as a breed society and of the 
decision approving its breeding programme for ‘Bălțată Românească’ cattle – 
decisions adopted by the defendant Agenția Națională pentru Zootehnie ‘Prof. dr. 
G.K. Constantinescu’ (‘the ANZ’) on the basis of Regulation (EU) 2016/1012 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Interpretation is sought, pursuant to Article 267 TFEU, of several provisions of 
Regulation (EU) 2016/1012, namely: recitals 21 and 24, Article 4(3)(b) and 
Articles 8, 10 and 13 thereof, as well as point A(4) and point B(2)(a) of Part 1 of 
Annex I thereto. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-286/23 
 
2  
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Should Article 4(3)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1012, read in conjunction 
with point A(4) of Part 1 of Annex I to that regulation, as well as recital 24 
thereof, be interpreted as meaning that a breed society may be recognised even if 
its intention is merely to attract breeders who are already entered in another 
approved breeding programme of another society, by signing applications or 
undertakings to that effect, or is it necessary that, on the date that the application 
for recognition is submitted, those breeders actually form part of the portfolio of 
the society requesting recognition? 
2. Should Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1012 and point B(2)(a) of Part 1 
of Annex I to [that regulation], read in conjunction with recital 24 thereof, be 
interpreted as meaning that breeders are free to choose the programmes for the 
improvement of the breed in which to enter their purebred breeding animals and, 
if so, may that freedom be restricted by the need to avoid prejudicing or 
compromising a breeding programme in which those breeders are already 
participating, as a result of those breeders transferring or undertaking to transfer to 
another breeding programme which is yet to be approved? 
3. Should Article 10(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1012, read in conjunction 
with recital 21 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that, when one of the conditions 
described in points (a) to (c) of Article 10(1) of that regulation is satisfied, the 
competent authority which has recognised the breed society is obliged to refuse to 
approve a breeding programme that would compromise another breeding 
programme as regards the aspects referred to in [that article], or does the use of 
the expression ‘… may refuse …’ mean that the authority is afforded a margin of 
discretion in that regard? 
4. Should Articles 8 and 10 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1012, read in conjunction 
with recital 21 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that, where a breeding 
programme whose main objective is the improvement of the breed is already 
being implemented in a Member State, it is permissible for a new breeding 
programme to be approved in the same State (the same geographical area) for the 
same breed, the main objective of which is also the improvement of the breed, as 
part of which breeding animals participating in the breeding programme already 
being implemented may be selected? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Regulation (EU) 2016/1012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
8 June 2016 on zootechnical and genealogical conditions for the breeding, trade in 
and entry into the Union of purebred breeding animals, hybrid breeding pigs and 
the germinal products thereof and amending Regulation (EU) No 652/2014, 
Council Directives 89/608/EEC and 90/425/EEC and repealing certain acts in the 
area of animal breeding (‘Animal Breeding Regulation’); recitals 21 and 24, 
ASOCIAȚIA CRESCĂTORILOR DE VACI ‘BĂLȚATĂ ROMÂNEASCĂ’ TIP SIMMENTAL 
 
3 
Article 4(3)(b) and Articles 8, 10 and 13 thereof, as well as point A(4) and 
point B(2)(a) of Part 1 of Annex I thereto 
Provisions of national law relied on 
The provisions of national law relied on are similar to the provisions of 
Regulation 2016/1012 in respect of which interpretation is sought by the referring 
court. 
Legea zootehniei nr. 32/2019 (Zootechnical Law No 32/2019): 
– Paragraph 1 of Article 24 provides that the competent State zootechnical 
authority is to recognise breed societies or breeding operations. That authority 
is to evaluate and approve the breeding programmes put forward by a breed 
society or by a breeding operation, if the conditions set out in paragraph 2 of 
that article (a paragraph which, for the most part, reproduces the wording of 
Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1012) are satisfied. Paragraph 3 of 
Article 24 provides that the competent State zootechnical authority which has 
recognised a breed society may refuse to approve a breeding programme if the 
breeding programme put forward by the society concerned would compromise 
a breeding programme carried out by another [breed] society for the same 
breed, which has already been approved, as regards one of the elements 
referred to in points (a) to (c) of that paragraph, corresponding to points (a) to 
(c) of Article 10(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1012. Paragraph 4 of Article 24 
provides that, when making a decision under paragraph 3 of that article, the 
competent authority is to take into account the number of breeding programmes 
already approved for that breed and the size of the breeding populations 
covered by those breeding programmes. 
Hotărârea Guvernului nr. 1188/2014 privind organizarea și funcționarea 
Agenției Naționale pentru Zootehnie ‘Prof. dr. G.K. Constantinescu’ 
(Government Decision No 1188/2014 on the organisation and operation of the 
National Zootechnical Agency ‘Prof. dr. G.K. Constantinescu’): 
– Article 1(1) provides that the ANZ is a specialised body of the central public 
administration, with legal personality, accountable to the Ministerul 
Agriculturii și Dezvoltării Rurale (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural 
Development); 
– Article 5(a), (e) and (i) provides that the ANZ is the State authority responsible 
for the recognition of breed societies and breeding operations, the approval of 
the breeding programmes for breeding animals carried out by those societies 
and operations, and the authorisation, in accordance with Article 27(3) of 
Regulation (EU) 2016/1012, of third parties designated by the breed societies 
or breeding operations to carry out performance testing and genetic evaluation; 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-286/23 
 
4  
– Article 51 provides that the recognition, authorisation and approval procedures 
referred to in Article 5(a) to (e) and (i) are to be developed by the ANZ and 
approved by an order from the Minister for Agriculture and Rural 
Development. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 By Decision No 726 of the ANZ of 24 November 2020, the defendant Genetica 
was recognised as a breed society for the purpose of implementing a breeding 
programme with purebred breeding animals entered in the breeding book kept by 
that society. 
2 By Decision No 779 of the ANZ of 2 December 2020, the defendant Genetica 
obtained approval for the breeding programme for ‘Bălțată Românească’ cattle. 
3 Those decisions were adopted on the basis of Regulation (EU) 2016/1012 and the 
corresponding provisions of national law regulating the requirements for 
recognition of breed societies and breeding operations and approval of their 
breeding programmes. 
4 The applicant Asociația Crescătorilor de Vaci ‘Bălțată Românească’ Tip 
Simmental (Association of breeders of ‘Bălțată Românească’ Simmental cattle) is 
a breed society that was previously recognised by the ANZ and whose breeding 
programme, approved by the ANZ in 2011 and currently in progress, concerns the 
same breed of cattle – Bălțată Românească – covered by the defendant Genetica’s 
approved breeding programme. 
5 In those circumstances, the applicant has brought an action before the referring 
court for annulment of the two decisions mentioned above [(collectively, ‘the 
contested decisions’)], challenging the lawfulness of the recognition of the 
defendant Genetica as a breed society and of the approval of its breeding 
programme. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
6 In support of its action for annulment, the applicant relies, in the first place, on 
grounds of a procedural nature which have a bearing on the lawfulness of the 
contested decisions. Thus, the applicant argues that the ANZ failed to comply with 
internal procedures, inasmuch as the contested decisions were adopted regardless 
of the proposal made by internal departments of the ANZ to reject Genetica’s 
application for recognition as a breed society. The applicant also claims that the 
procedure for recognising breed societies and approving breeding programmes is 
unlawful as a whole, on the ground that it was not adopted by an order of the 
Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development, thereby infringing Article 51 of 
Government Decision No 1188/2014. 
ASOCIAȚIA CRESCĂTORILOR DE VACI ‘BĂLȚATĂ ROMÂNEASCĂ’ TIP SIMMENTAL 
 
5 
7 In the second place, the applicant claims that the approval of the defendant 
Genetica’s breeding programme adversely affects the applicant’s breeding 
programme, that has already been approved, on the following grounds: the 
contested breeding programme covers the same geographical territory and the 
same breed of cattle, and Genetica works with animal breeders entered in the 
applicant’s breeding programme; approval of the new breeding programme causes 
significant financial loss as a result of the withdrawal of 34 000 head of cattle 
from the applicant’s programme, the loss of the investments made in setting up a 
purebred animal sperm bank and the loss of the investments made in creating 
software adapted to the applicant’s objectives. The risk of compromising the 
applicant’s breeding programme would therefore render Article 10(1) of 
Regulation (EU) 2016/1012, recital 21 thereof and Article 24(3) of Zootechnical 
Law No 32/2019 applicable. 
8 In the third place, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 4(3)(b) of 
Regulation (EU) 2016/1012, inasmuch as the defendant Genetica did not 
demonstrate, on the date on which it was recognised, that it had a sufficiently 
large population of purebred breeding animals for the implementation of the 
breeding programme, since the animal breeders on which its breeding programme 
was based had not yet entered that programme, but were to come from the 
applicant’s breeding programme. Nor did the defendant Genetica provide proof of 
registration of an application for approval of a breeding programme at the same 
time as the application for recognition as a breed society was made, which would 
result in infringement of Article 4(3)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1012. 
9 In its defence, the defendant Genetica contends that the alleged failure to comply 
with the internal procedures of the ANZ is irrelevant to the addressees of the 
administrative acts and that, since the contested decisions comply with the 
provisions of Regulation (EU) 2016/1012, their lawfulness is not affected by any 
infringement of the internal procedural rules on the recognition of breed societies 
and the approval of their breeding programmes. 
10 Nor, according to Genetica, can the risk of compromising the applicant’s breeding 
programme constitute a ground for the illegality of the contested decisions, since, 
in accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2016/1012, the recognition 
of a breed society does not exclude beyond argument the recognition of other 
breed societies and the approval of breeding programmes for the same breed; the 
financial loss resulting from the withdrawal of a number of animal breeders from 
the applicant’s programme arose after they terminated the contracts concluded by 
the applicant and not as a result of the contested decisions. 
11 Lastly, as regards the failure to meet the requirements for recognition as a breed 
society, Genetica contests the applicant’s arguments concerning the lack of 
evidence of the animal population and contends that Regulation (EU) 2016/1012 
provides that, at the time when the application for approval as a breed society is 
submitted, only a draft version of the breeding programme is to be submitted and 
not the breeding programme in its definitive form. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-286/23 
 
6  
12 The ANZ indicates that it exercises its powers of recognition of breed societies 
and approval of breeding programmes on the basis of Regulation (EU) 2016/1012, 
which is directly applicable. 
13 As regards the lawfulness of the recognition of the defendant Genetica as a breed 
society and the alleged risk of compromising the applicant’s breeding programme, 
the ANZ points out that Genetica filed the lists of the animal breeders and the 
number of animals in respect of which entry into the breeding programme was 
requested, that, under Regulation (EU) 2016/1012 and in keeping with the 
principle of contractual freedom, animal breeders are free to choose the breeding 
programmes in which to enter their animals and that approval of a breeding 
programme post-dates recognition as a breed society. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
14 The first question referred for a preliminary ruling raises the issue of whether a 
breed society may be recognised when it has signed only undertakings to enter the 
programme in respect of some or all of the animal breeders, without those animal 
breeders already being included in the society’s portfolio. 
15 That question has been raised in order to resolve the issue of the lawfulness of the 
decision to recognise the defendant Genetica as a breed society in the light of the 
applicant’s argument that the animal breeders interested in Genetica’s breeding 
programme had not yet entered that programme, but were to come from the 
applicant’s breeding programme, in breach of the relevant provisions of 
Regulation (EU) 2016/1012. 
16 In accordance with Article 4(3)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1012, read in 
conjunction with point A(4) of Part 1 of Annex I to that regulation, a society 
seeking recognition as a breed society must demonstrate in its application that, in 
respect of each breeding programme, it has a sufficiently large population of 
breeding animals within the geographical territories to be covered by that 
programme. 
17 Furthermore, it is apparent from the third sentence of recital 21 of that regulation 
that purebred breeding animals may be selected from another breeding 
programme. According to that recital, the protection of the economic activity of a 
recognised breed society ‘should not justify the refusal … [to approve] a further 
breeding programme or [to approve] the geographical extension of an existing 
breeding programme, which is carried out on the same breed, or on breeding 
animals of the same breed that can be recruited from the breeding population of a 
breed society that is already carrying out a breeding programme on that breed’. 
18 The second question referred for a preliminary ruling calls into question the right 
or freedom of animal breeders to choose the breeding programmes in which to 
participate, abandoning a programme in which they are already participating and 
entering another programme which is yet to be approved. In this regard, 
ASOCIAȚIA CRESCĂTORILOR DE VACI ‘BĂLȚATĂ ROMÂNEASCĂ’ TIP SIMMENTAL 
 
7 
interpretation is sought of the following provisions of Regulation (EU) 2016/1012: 
Article 13(1) thereof, which provides for the right of animal breeders to 
participate in an approved breeding programme and the right to join that breed 
society; point B(2)(a) of Part 1 of Annex I thereto and recital 24 thereof, which 
provide that breeders have free choice in the selection and breeding of their 
breeding animals. 
19 The referring court takes the view that it is necessary to determine the extent to 
which the freedom of those breeders to choose between a number of breeding 
programmes may be restricted by the need to avoid prejudicing or compromising a 
breeding programme in which those breeders are already participating, as a result 
of them transferring or undertaking to transfer to another breeding programme 
which is yet to be approved (in the present case those breeders actually transferred 
to that programme after it had been approved). 
20 By the third question referred for a preliminary ruling, the referring court requests 
an analysis of the issue of whether there is an obligation or merely a possibility, 
on the part of the competent national authority, to refuse to approve a breeding 
programme where the conditions laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 
2016/1012 are satisfied. 
21 More specifically, that court wishes to clarify whether the use of the expression 
‘may refuse’ in Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1012 means that the 
competent national authority is recognised as having a margin of discretion or 
whether that authority is required to refuse to approve a breeding programme 
where that programme would compromise a breeding programme carried out by 
another breed society in respect of the same breed, which has already been 
approved in the Member State concerned, as regards at least one of the elements 
referred to in Article 10(1) of that regulation. 
22 The referring court states that, at this stage of the proceedings, it cannot yet rule 
on the prevalence of the proposal put forward by the internal department of the 
ANZ to reject the defendant’s breeding programme. 
23 As regards the fourth question referred for a preliminary ruling, the referring court 
states that it calls into question the possible coexistence of two or more breeding 
programmes, with similar objectives, for the same breed, in the same geographical 
area, in a situation in which the new breeding programme, which is yet to be 
approved, is based on selecting breeding animals originating from a breeding 
programme that is already being implemented. 
24 In this context, interpretation is sought of Articles 8 and 10 of Regulation (EU) 
2016/1012 relating to the conditions for approval of breeding programmes, which 
are directly relevant to the case brought before the referring court.