Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2006:30
Date: 2006-01-12
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Beef and veal;Public health;Veterinary legislation
Concepts: Principle of proportionality;Precautionary principle
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment 1. Community law – Principles – Proportionality – Scope 2. Community law – Principles – Proportionality – Acts of the institutions 1. The principle of proportionality, which is one of the general principles of Community law, requires that measures adopted by Community institutions do not exceed the limits of what is appropriate and necessary in order to attain the legitimate objectives 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. Accordingly, when what is at issue is the adoption of rules designed to protect public health, the Community legislature must fully take into account, in addition to the main objective, all the interests involved and, in particular, the right to property and the welfare requirements of animals. (see paras 35, 37) 2. The validity of a Community act in the light of the principle of proportionality cannot depend on retrospective assessment of its efficacy. Where the Community 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 manifestly incorrect in the light of the information available to it at the time of the adoption of the rules in question. Thus, when what is at issue is the adoption of rules designed to protect public health, it must be accepted that, where there is uncertainty as to the existence or extent of risks to human health, the institutions, applying the principle of precaution and preventive action, may take protective measures without having to wait until the reality and seriousness of those risks become fully apparent. On the other hand, when new elements change the perception of a risk or show that that risk can be contained by less restrictive measures than the existing measures, it is for the institutions and in particular the Commission, which has the power of legislative initiative, to bring about an amendment to the rules in the light of the new information. (see paras 38-40)