Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure - Intervention - Application in support of the form of order sought by one of the parties but relying on a different argument

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 37, fourth para.)

2. Appeals - Grounds - Error of law relied on not identified - Inadmissible

(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))

3. Agriculture - Uniform legislation - Maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin - Procedure for establishing limits - Regulation No 2377/90 - Refusal of an application to include a recombinant bovine somatotrophin in the list of substances not subject to a maximum residue limit - Account taken of a prohibition on placing that substance on the market - Whether permissible

(Council Regulation No 2377/90, Art. 6(1); Council Directives 81/851, Art. 4(2)(b), 87/22 and 90/676)

4. Agriculture - Uniform legislation - Maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin - Procedure for establishing limits - Regulation No 2377/90 - Commission's powers

(Council Regulation No 2377/90, Art. 6)

Summary

1. The fourth paragraph of Article 37 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which is applicable to the Court of First Instance by virtue of Article 46 of that Statute, does not preclude an intervener from using arguments different from those used by the party it is supporting, provided that the intervener seeks to support that party's submissions.

( see para. 56 )

2. It follows from Article 225 EC, the first paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice that an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment which the appellant seeks to have set aside and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal.

An appeal which does not state which grounds of the contested judgment, taken from another judgment, are vitiated by an error of law and does not indicate in any way the extent to which the new factors which it raises could have had the slightest bearing on those grounds does not satisfy that requirement.

( see paras 68-69 )

3. The Commission was right, in the context of the Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits (MRLs) of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin laid down by Regulation No 2377/90, to refuse an application to include a recombinant bovine somatotrophin (BST) in the list of substances not subject to an MRL contained in Annex II submitted pursuant to Article 6(1) of the regulation, taking into account the ban on issuing a marketing authorisation with a view to the marketing or administration of BST to dairy cows resulting from Decision 90/218, as amended by Decision 94/936, inasmuch as the effect of that decision was that the condition that the product be marketed laid down in the second indent of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 2377/90 had not been fulfilled.

On the one hand it follows from Article 4(2)(b) of Directive 81/851 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to veterinary medicinal products, as amended by Directive 90/676, from Directive 87/22 on the approximation of national measures relating to the placing on the market of high-technology medicinal products, and from Article 6(1) of Regulation No 2377/90 that the procedures for establishing MRLs and issuing marketing authorisations are inherently linked, inasmuch as a marketing authorisation will not be issued in respect of a veterinary medicinal product for administration to food-producing animals unless an MRL has been established, and, by the same token, an MRL will not be established for a new pharmacologically active substance unless that substance is intended to be placed on the market. On the other hand, it is self-evident that, when applying a regulation, the Commission may take other provisions of Community law into account. That is a fortiori the position in the present case, since the second indent of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 2377/90 makes the marketing of the product one of the conditions for procuring the establishment of an MRL.

( see paras 80, 82-84 )

4. Where, in the context of the Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin laid down by Regulation No 2377/90, one of the conditions for procuring the establishment of a maximum residue limit has not been fulfilled, the Commission is entitled to defer consideration of the request or even to refuse it.

Such a decision may be adopted by the Commission pursuant to the principle of sound administration and the duty of care, after the interests of all the parties concerned have been weighed, namely, on the one hand, the interest of the institution in not having to follow a highly burdensome decision-making procedure involving reference to the Regulatory Committee, where the marketing authorisation cannot yet be issued and should not be issued in the short term, and, on the other hand, the legitimate interest of an undertaking in not having to delay the implementation of its marketing plans in the expectation that a moratorium on the marketing of the product in question may soon be lifted.

( see paras 91-92 )