Agrarproduktion Staebelow GmbH v Landrat des Landkreises Bad Doberan.
Date: 2006-01-12
35. 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 (Case C-331/88 Fedesa and Others  [1990] ECR I-4023, paragraph 13; Joined Cases C-133/93, C-300/93 and C-362/93 Crispoltoni and Others  [1994] ECR I‑4863, paragraph 41; Case C-157/96 National Farmers’ Union and Others [1998] ECR I-2211, paragraph 60; and Case C‑189/01 Jippes and Others  [2001] ECR I‑5689, paragraph 81).
36. With regard to judicial review of the conditions for application of such a principle, having regard to the broad discretion which the Community legislature is allowed in an area such as that involved in the present case, which entails political, economic and social choices on its part, and in which it is called upon to undertake complex assessments, the legality of a measure adopted in that area can be affected only if the measure is manifestly inappropriate having regard to the objective which the competent institution is seeking to pursue (Joined Cases C‑453/03, C-11/04, C-12/04 and C-194/04 ABNA and Others  [2005] ECR I-0000, paragraph 69).
37. When examining the constraints relating to the various possible measures, it is appropriate to ascertain whether, apart from the main objective of the protection of public health, the Community legislature fully took into account all the interests involved and, in particular, the right to property and the welfare requirements of the animals (Joined Cases C-96/03 and C-97/03 Tempelman and van Schaijk  [2005] ECR I‑1895, paragraph 48).
38. In addition, it should be recalled that the validity of a Community act 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 ( Jippes and Others , cited above, paragraph 84).
39. Therefore, 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 (see, to that effect, National Farmers’ Union and Others,  cited above, paragraph 63).
40. 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.