Danske Svineproducenter v Justitsministeriet.
Date: 2011-12-21
32. In that regard, it must be noted that, in the context of the cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts provided for by Article 267 TFEU, it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine, in the light of the particular circumstances of the case before it, both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court. The right to determine the questions to be put to the Court thus devolves upon the national court alone and the parties to the main proceedings may not change their tenor (see, inter alia, Case C‑138/08 Hochtief and Linde-Kca-Dresden  [2009] ECR I‑9889, paragraphs 20 and 21 and the case-law cited).
33. In addition, to alter the substance of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling, or to answer the additional questions mentioned in its observations by the applicant in the main proceedings, would be incompatible with the Court’s duty to ensure that the governments of the Member States and the parties concerned are given the opportunity to submit observations in accordance with Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, bearing in mind the fact that, under that provision, only the decision of the referring court is notified to the interested parties (see, to that effect, Hochtief and Linde-Kca-Dresden , paragraph 22 and the case-law cited).
39. Therefore, by virtue of the very nature of regulations and of their function in the system of sources of European Union law, the provisions of regulations generally have immediate effect in the national legal systems without its being necessary for the national authorities to adopt measures of application (see Case C‑278/02 Handlbauer  [2004] ECR I‑6171, paragraph 25 and the case-law cited).
40. However, some of their provisions may necessitate, for their implementation, the adoption of measures of application by the Member States ( Handlbauer , paragraph 26 and the case-law cited).
41. It also follows from settled case-law that Member States may adopt rules for the application of a regulation if they do not obstruct its direct applicability and do not conceal its Community nature, and if they specify that a discretion granted to them by that regulation is being exercised, provided that they adhere to the parameters laid down under it (Case C‑113/02 Commission  v Netherlands  [2004] ECR I‑9707, paragraph 16 and the case-law cited).
43. In order to determine whether a national measure for the application of Regulation No 1/2005 is in accordance with European Union law, it is therefore necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of that regulation in order to establish whether those provisions, interpreted in the light of the objectives of that regulation, prohibit, require or allow Member States to adopt certain measures of application and, particularly in the latter case, whether the measure concerned comes within the scope of the discretion that each Member State is recognised as having.
44. As regards the objectives of Regulation No 1/2005, it must be pointed out that, although it is true that the elimination of technical barriers to trade in live animals and the smooth operation of market organisations, referred to in recital 2 in the preamble to that regulation, form part of the purpose of that regulation in the same way as they formed part of that of Directive 91/628, of which Regulation No 1/2005 constitutes the extension, it is, however, apparent from recitals 2, 6 and 11 in the preamble to that regulation that, like that directive, its main objective is the protection of animals during transport. In that regard, the finding in paragraph 29 of the judgment in Case C‑491/06 Danske Svineproducenter  as regards the objectives of that directive therefore remains valid in respect of Regulation No 1/2005.
46. With regard to the internal height of compartments intended for animals in road vehicles used for the transport of pigs, the legislation at issue in the main proceedings contains two separate types of standards. First, Paragraph 9(1) of Order No 1729/2006, which is applicable irrespective of the journey time, lays down standards with regard to the minimum internal height of compartments in relation to the weight of the animals being transported. Secondly, Paragraph 36(4) of that order lays down, on a transitional basis, standards of the same nature, although more stringent, which are, however, applicable only to journeys of more than eight hours. Such standards are identical to those examined in the judgment in Case C‑491/06 Danske Svineproducenter , as is apparent from paragraphs 14, 15 and 34 of that judgment.
49. Furthermore, as the Danish Government submits, the adoption by a Member State of standards specifically defining, at national level, the scope of requirements formulated in general terms by Regulation No 1/2005 is liable to strengthen legal certainty, in so far as those standards establish criteria which increase the predictability of the requirements of that regulation and thereby contribute both towards compliance with those requirements on the part of the traders concerned and to the effectiveness and objectivity of the checks to be carried out by all the competent authorities to that end.
51. It is, however, important that such standards be in accordance both with the provisions and objectives of Regulation No 1/2005 and with the general principles of European Union law, in particular the principle of proportionality.
52. That principle, which applies to, inter alia, the legislative and regulatory authorities of the Member States when they apply European Union law, requires that measures implemented by means of a provision must be appropriate for attaining the objective pursued and must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve it (see, to that effect, Case C‑375/08 Pontini and Others [2010] ECR I‑5767, paragraph 87 and the case-law cited). That principle implies, inter alia, that, where there is European Union legislation which pursues a number of objectives, one of which is the main objective, a Member State which adopts a standard in the context of the discretion conferred on it by a provision of that legislation must comply with that main objective without hindering the attainment of the other objectives of that legislation. Therefore, in the light of those other objectives, such a national standard must be appropriate for ensuring that that main objective is attained and must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve it (see, by analogy, Case C‑491/06 Danske Svineproducenter , paragraphs 31, 32 and 40).
54. As regards, first, provisions specifying the minimum internal height of compartments, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, it must be stated that the standards which they lay down are appropriate for attaining the main objective of the protection of animals during transport which is pursued by Regulation No 1/2005 (see, by analogy, Case C‑491/06 Danske Svineproducenter , paragraph 46).
55. It is, however, appropriate to point out that standards of that nature, if they are likely to apply to the entire transport of pigs which takes place, even in part, on the territory of the Member State which prescribes them, may undermine the attainment of the objectives of eliminating technical barriers to trade in live animals and allowing market organisations to operate smoothly, objectives which are also pursued by Regulation No 1/2005. It is therefore necessary to establish that, having regard to those objectives, such standards are necessary and proportionate to the main objective of the protection of animals during transport pursued by that regulation and that their application does not restrict the free movement of goods in respect of both imports and exports (see, by analogy, Case C‑491/06 Danske Svineproducenter , paragraph 43) disproportionately (see, by analogy, Case C‑562/08 Müller Fleisch  [2010] ECR I‑1391, paragraphs 38 and 42).
58. Furthermore, it is also necessary to ascertain that those standards do not result in additional costs or technical difficulties which disadvantage either producers in the Member State which adopted them or producers from other Member States who wish to export their goods to or via that Member State (see, by analogy, Case C‑491/06 Danske Svineproducenter , paragraph 45).
67. It must therefore be held that numerical standards relating to maximum loading density such as those laid down in Annex 2, points 1 and 2, of Order No 1729/2006 comply with the minimum and maximum standards laid down by Regulation No 1/2005 (see, by analogy, Case C‑491/06 Danske Svineproducenter , paragraph 50).