In matters concerning the common agricultural policy the EU legislature has a broad discretion which corresponds to the political responsibilities given to it by Articles 40 TFEU and 43 TFEU; accordingly the lawfulness of a measure adopted in that sphere can be affected only if the measure is manifestly inappropriate, having regard to the objective which the competent institution is seeking to pursue.

However, while the importance of the objectives pursued may justify restrictions which have adverse consequences, and even substantial adverse consequences, for certain traders, it is appropriate to ascertain, when examining the constraints relating to the various possible measures, whether the EU legislature fully took into account all the interests involved, apart from the main objective pursued.

That is so in the case of Directive 2002/55 on the marketing of vegetable seed and Directive 2002/145 providing for certain derogations, for acceptance of vegetable landraces and varieties which have been traditionally grown in particular localities and regions and are threatened by genetic erosion and of vegetable varieties with no intrinsic value for commercial crop production but developed for growing under particular conditions and for marketing of seed of those landraces and varieties. It follows from recitals 2 to 4 in the preamble to Directive 2002/55 that the primary objective of the rules relating to the acceptance of seed of vegetable varieties is to improve productivity in vegetable cultivation in the European Union. The establishment of a common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species on the basis of national catalogues, as provided for by that directive, is capable of ensuring that that objective is attained.

Directive 2002/55 is also intended to establish the internal market for vegetable seed by ensuring its free movement within the European Union. In the present case, the acceptance regime laid down by that directive contributes to the attainment of that objective, since such a regime ensures that seed marketed in the various Member States will satisfy the same requirements.

Lastly, as is apparent from Article 4(4) of Directive 2002/55, the directive is also aimed at conserving plant genetic resources. In that regard, in so far as the Member States may depart from the acceptance criteria set out therein in accordance with the derogating acceptance regime implemented by Directive 2009/145, which applies to certain categories of seed, such a regime is capable of ensuring that that objective also is attained.

A less restrictive measure, such as labelling, would not be as effective a means of ensuring that those objectives are attained, since it would allow the sale and, therefore, the sowing of seed that is potentially harmful or not conducive to optimum agricultural production. It follows from this that that legislation cannot be regarded as being manifestly inappropriate in the light of the aforementioned objectives.

In view of the appropriateness of that legislation, the obstacle to the freedom to pursue an economic activity which the measures provided for by that legislation represent cannot, in the light of the aims pursued, be regarded as disproportionately impairing the right to exercise that freedom.

(see paras 39, 40, 43, 44, 47-49, 60, 79)