CELEX: C1996/210/51
Language: en
Date: 1996-07-20 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 21 May 1996 by the National Farmers' Union, International Traders Ferry Limited, UK Genetics, R. S. and E. M. Wright Limited, and Prosper de Mulder Limited against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-76/96)

No C 210/22         1 EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20 . 7 . 96
Action brought on 21 May 1996 by the National Farmers'               The applicants submit that the Decision is unlawful on the
Union, International Traders Ferry Limited, UK Genetics,             following grounds .
R. S. and E. M. Wright Limited, and Prosper de Mulder
Limited against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                               — The Commission lacked competence to adopt the
                        ( Case T-76/96 )                                 Decision . The Decision has its purported legal basis in
                          ( 96/C 210/51 )                                Council Directives 90/425/EEC, concerning veterinary
                                                                         and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community
                                                                         trade in certain live animals and products, and
                (Language of the case: English)                          89/662/EEC, concerning veterinary checks in
                                                                         intra-Community trade . Those Directives were adopted
An action against the Commission of the European                         on the basis of Article 43 of the EEC Treaty, which gives
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        the Council, but not the Commission, competence to act
Instance of the European Communities on 21 May 1996 by                   in agricultural fields . The limits of the Commission's
the National Farmers' Union, International Traders Ferry                 competence, if any, to adopt the Decision are therefore
Limited, UK Genetics, R. S. and E. M. Wright Limited, and                to be found in the two Directives, which are concerned
Prosper de Mulder Limited, all represented by Stuart Isaacs              only with the protection of animal health and human
QC and Clive Lewis , Barristers, instructed by Burges                    health and apply only to intra-Community trade . The
Salmon, Solicitors, with an address for service in                       contested Decision was adopted not because it was
Luxembourg at the office of Elvinger Hoss & Prussen , BP                 intended to protect against any serious hazard to public
425 .                                                                    health but because of 'serious concern among
                                                                         consumers'. Furthermore, it also prohibits exports from
                                                                         the United Kingdom to third countries in order ' to
The applicants claim that the Court should :                             prevent deflections of trade '. However, such a ban goes
                                                                         well beyond what might have been necessary in order to
— déclaré Commission Décision 96/239/EC void, and                        prevent the items referred to in Article 1 of the Decision
                                                                         from being exported from the United Kingdom to a
— order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs ;                    third country and then imported back into the
                                                                         Community.
in the alternative,
— declare that the Decision is void in
                                                                     — In adopting the Decision, the Commission misused its
                                                                         powers . It is clear that the main purpose of the Decision
    — its application to exports to third countries,                     was not to protect against any serious hazard to public
        and/or
                                                                         health but to allay unspecified concern among
                                                                         consumers .
    — in its application to all or certain of the following:
        ( a ) bovine semen,
                                                                     — The Decision infringes the fundamental principle of
        ( b ) bovine embryos,                                            proportionality. It is disproportionate because it was not
                                                                         necessary or appropriate to the aim of allaying consumer
        (c ) live calves under six months,                               uncertainty or for the protection of human health ( if that
        ( d ) fresh bovine meat from animals aged less than              were indeed the aim pursued by the Commission,
              two and a half years at date of slaughter,                 contrary to the recitals in the Decision ). A worldwide
                                                                         ban was not necessary, given that Community and
        (e ) tallow,                                                     United Kingdom measures for protection against BSE
                                                                         already existed and that new information provided by
        ( f) gelatine .                                                  the United Kingdom did not suggest that there was any
                                                                         increased or changed risk arising from the consumption
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          of beef or beef products . In particular, the earlier
                                                                          Commission Decisions regulating the export of live
The applicants, companies engaged respectively in the                    calves, bovine embryos and meat products only applied
transhipment of non-pedigree livestock from the United                   to exports from the United Kingdom to other Member
Kingdom to the rest of the European Union, in the export                  States . No action was considered necessary to prohibit
and import of bovine genetics, in the rearing of cattle                  exports to third countries . No evidence has been
exclusively for slaughter for the Italian market, and in the             produced to suggest that it was necessary or appropriate
rendering of animal by-products and waste, and a trade                    now to prohibit these exports for reasons of public
association representing the majority of farmers in England               health or to allay consumer uncertainty in the European
and Wales, challenge Commission Decision 96/239/EC on                     Union .
emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform
encephalopathy . Article 1 of the Decision prohibits the
United Kingdom from exporting from its territory to the
other Member States and to third countries the items
specified in its provisions .