Association Kokopelli v Graines Baumaux SAS.
Date: 2012-07-12
28. It must be borne in mind in that regard that when a question on the validity of a measure adopted by the European Union institutions is raised before a national court, it is for that court to decide whether a decision on the matter is necessary to enable it to give judgment and consequently whether it should request the Court to rule on that question. Accordingly, where the national court’s questions relate to the validity of a provision of EU law, the Court is obliged in principle to give a ruling (Case C-343/09 Afton Chemical  [2010] ECR I-7027, paragraph 13 and the case-law cited).
29. It is possible for the Court to refuse to give a preliminary ruling on a question submitted by a national court only where, inter alia, it is quite obvious that the ruling sought by that court on the interpretation or validity of EU law bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose or where the problem is hypothetical ( Afton Chemical , paragraph 14).
34. Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that in the complete system of legal remedies and procedures established by the FEU Treaty with a view to ensuring judicial review of the legality of acts of the institutions, where natural or legal persons cannot, by reason of the conditions for admissibility laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, directly challenge acts of the European Union of general application, they are able, depending on the case, either indirectly to plead the invalidity of such acts before the EU judicature under Article 277 TFEU or to do so before the national courts and ask them, since they have no jurisdiction themselves to declare those measures invalid, to make a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on validity ( Afton Chemical , paragraph 18).
35. It is sufficient to find that Kokopelli undoubtedly did not have standing to bring an action for annulment of Directives 2002/55 and 2009/145 on the basis of Articles 230 EC and 263 TFEU. Consequently, it is entitled, in an action brought in accordance with national law, to plead the invalidity of those directives even though it did not bring an action for their annulment before the EU judicature within the period laid down in those articles (see, to that effect, Afton Chemical , paragraphs 19 to 25).
38. According to settled case-law, the principle of proportionality — the alleged breach of which should be examined first of all — is one of the general principles of EU law and requires that measures implemented through provisions of EU law be appropriate for attaining the legitimate objectives pursued by the legislation at issue and must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve them (Joined Cases C-453/03, C-11/04, C-12/04 and C-194/04 ABNA and Others  [2005] ECR I-10423, paragraph 68; Case C-558/07 S.P.C.M. and Others  [2009] ECR I-5783, paragraph 41; and Case C-58/08 Vodafone and Others [2010] ECR I-4999, paragraph 51).
39. With regard to the judicial review of the conditions mentioned in the preceding paragraph of the present judgment, it should be noted that 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 and that the Court has, on several occasions, held that 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 (see Case C-280/93 Germany  v Council  [1994] ECR I-4973, paragraphs 89 and 90; Case C-306/93 SMW Winzersekt  [1994] ECR I-5555, paragraph 21; and Case C-343/07 Bavaria and Bavaria Italia [2009] ECR I-5491, paragraph 81).
40. However, while the importance of the objectives pursued may justify restrictions which have adverse consequences, and even substantial adverse consequences, for certain traders (Case C-183/95 Affish  [1997] ECR I-4315, paragraph 42), 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 (Case C-504/04 Agrarproduktion Staebelow  [2006] ECR I-679, paragraph 37).
70. According to settled case-law, compliance with the principle of equal treatment, or of non-discrimination, requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently and that different situations must not be treated in the same way unless such treatment is objectively justified (Case C-44/94 Fishermen’s Organisations and Others  [1995] ECR I-3115, paragraph 46; Case C-304/01 Spain  v Commission  [2004] ECR I-7655, paragraph 31; Case C-141/05 Spain  v Council  [2007] ECR I-9485, paragraph 40; and Case C-442/04 Spain  v Council  [2008] ECR I-3517, paragraph 35).
77. It is clear from settled case-law that the freedom to pursue an economic activity forms part of the general principles of EU law. Those principles are, however, not absolute, but must be viewed in relation to their social function. Consequently, the exercise of the freedom to pursue an economic activity may be restricted, provided that any restrictions in fact correspond to objectives of general interest pursued by the European Union and do not constitute in relation to the aim pursued a disproportionate and intolerable interference, impairing the very substance of the rights guaranteed (see, in particular, Case 265/87 Schräder HS Kraftfutter  [1989] ECR 2237, paragraph 15, and Joined Cases C-154/04 and C-155/04 Alliance for Natural Health and Others [2005] ECR I-6451, paragraph 126).
80. It should be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, the prohibition of quantitative restrictions and of measures having equivalent effect laid down in Article 34 TFEU applies not only to national measures but also to measures adopted by the institutions of the European Union (see Case 15/83 Denkavit Nederland [1984] ECR I-2171, paragraph 15, and Alliance for Natural Health and Others , paragraph 47).
81. In that regard, it should be observed that, as paragraphs 43 to 47 of the present judgment show, the acceptance regime laid down by Directives 2002/55 and 2009/145 contributes to improved productivity in vegetable cultivation in the European Union and to the establishment of the internal market for vegetable seed by ensuring the free movement of such seed within the European Union. Accordingly, the regime promotes, rather than restricts, the free movement of goods.
Non-compliance with the ITPGRFA
84. It has consistently been held that, by virtue of Article 216(2) TFEU, where international agreements are concluded by the European Union they are binding upon its institutions and, consequently, they prevail over acts of the European Union (Case C-366/10 Air Transport Association of America and Others [2011] ECR I-13755, paragraph 50).
85. The validity of the act of the European Union concerned in the light of the rules of international law may be assessed where the European Union is bound by those rules and where the nature and the broad logic of the international treaty at issue do not preclude this and its provisions appear, as regards their content, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise (see, to that effect, Air Transport Association of America and Others , paragraphs 51 to 54).