Herbert Schaible v Land Baden-Württemberg.
Date: 2013-10-17
25. The protection afforded by Article 16 of the Charter covers the freedom to exercise an economic or commercial activity, the freedom of contract and free competition, as is apparent from the explanations relating to that article, which, in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 6(1) TEU and Article 52(7) of the Charter, have to be taken into consideration for the interpretation of the Charter (Case C‑283/11 Sky Österreich  [2013] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 42).
27. However, Article 52(1) of the Charter accepts that limitations may be imposed on the exercise of rights and freedoms, such as the freedom to conduct a business, as long as those limitations are provided for by law, respect the essence of those rights and freedoms and, subject to the principle of proportionality, are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the European Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C-92/09 and C-93/09 Volker und Markus Schecke and Eifert  [2010] ECR I-11063, paragraph 65, and Sky Österreich , paragraph 48).
28. According to the case-law of the Court, the freedom to conduct a business is not absolute. It may be subject to a broad range of interventions on the part of public authorities which may limit the exercise of economic activity in the public interest (see, to that effect, Sky Österreich , paragraphs 45 and 46 and the case-law cited).
29. As regards proportionality, the Court recalls that, according the case-law of the Court, that principle requires that measures adopted by European Union institutions do not exceed the limits of what is appropriate and necessary in order to attain the objectives legitimately pursued by the legislation in question, it being understood that, 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‑343/09 Afton Chemical  [2010] ECR I‑7027, paragraph 45, and Joined Cases C‑581/10 and C‑629/10 Nelson and Others  [2012] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 71 and Sky Österreich , paragraph 50).
35. Health protection, the control of epizootic diseases and the welfare of animals, objectives which overlap, constitute legitimate objectives in the public interest pursued by European Union legislation, as well as the completion in the sector concerned of the agricultural internal market (see, to that effect, as regards health protection, Case C-269/97 Commission  v Council  [2000] ECR I-2257, paragraph 48, and Joined Cases C-20/00 and C-64/00 Booker Aquaculture and Hydro Seafood  [2003] ECR I‑7411, paragraph 78, and, as regards the welfare of the animals, Joined Cases C‑37/06 and C‑58/06 Viamex Agrar Handel and ZVK  [2008] ECR I‑69, paragraph 22, and Case C‑219/07 Nationale Raad van Dierenkwekers en Liefhebbers and Andibel  [2008] ECR I‑4475, paragraph 27).
47. It should be pointed out, with regard to judicial review of the validity of the provisions of a regulation, that the Court, when it assesses the proportionality of the measures implemented by those provisions, has accepted that the legislature of the European Union, in the exercise of the powers conferred on it, must be allowed a broad discretion in areas which involve, on its part,  political, economic and social choices and in which it is called upon to undertake complex assessments (see, to that effect, Case C-58/08 Vodafone and Others  [2010] ECR I-4999, paragraphs 51 and 52).
48. In the area of agriculture, the European Union legislature enjoys, inter alia, such a broad discretion, corresponding to the political responsibilities given to it by Articles 40 TFEU to 43 TFEU. Consequently, review by the Court is limited to verifying whether that legislature has manifestly exceeded the limits of its discretion (see, to that effect, Case C‑221/09 AJD Tuna  [2011] ECR I‑1655, paragraph 80, and Case C‑545/11 Agrargenossenschaft Neuzelle  [2013] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 43).
49. Indeed, even though it has such a discretion, the European Union legislature must base its choice on objective criteria and, in assessing the burdens associated with various possible measures, it must examine whether the objectives pursued by the measure chosen are such as to justify even substantial negative consequences for certain economic operators (see, to that effect, Vodafone and Others , paragraph 53).
50. However, it should be pointed out that the validity of a European Union measure must be assessed on the basis of the facts and the law as they stood at the time when the measure was adopted and cannot depend on retrospective assessments of its efficacy. Where the European Union 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 (see, to that effect, Case C-504/04 Agrarproduktion Staebelow  [2006] ECR I-679, paragraph 38, and C-309/10 Agrana Zucker  [2011] ECR I-7333, paragraph  45).
60. As regards any disproportionate nature of the contested obligations, it should be noted that the European Union legislature was required to strike a balance between the interests at issue (see, to that effect, Volker und Markus Schecke and Eifert , paragraph 77, and Sky Österreich , paragraph 59), namely, on the one hand, the freedom of keepers of sheep and goats to conduct business and, on the other, the general interest in controlling epizootic disease in sheep and goats.
76. Equality before the law, set out in Article 20 of the Charter, is a general principle of European Union law which requires that comparable situations should not be treated differently and that different situations should not be treated in the same way, unless such different treatment is objectively justified (see, to that effect, Case C-313/04 Egenberger  [2006] ECR I-6331, paragraph 33).
77. According to the case-law of the Court a difference in treatment is justified if it is based on an objective and reasonable criterion, that is, if the difference relates to a legally permitted aim pursued by the legislation in question, and it is proportionate to the aim pursued by the treatment (Case C-127/07 Arcelor Atlantique et Lorraine and Others  [2008] ECR I‑9895, paragraph 47).
87. Finally, it should be pointed out that, according to settled case-law, the prohibition on discrimination is not concerned with any disparities in treatment which may result, between the Member States, from divergences existing between the legislation of the various Member States so long as that legislation affects equally all persons subject to it (Case C-428/07 Horvath  [2009] ECR I-6355, paragraph 55 and the case-law cited). The Court held that while it is true that that principle was developed in the context of the interpretation of provisions of European Union law with a view to assessing the compatibility of national legislation by reference to the principle of non-discrimination, the situation cannot be any different as regards the assessment of the validity of the provision of European Union law granting the Member States a margin of discretion by virtue of which they adopt such different legislation (see, by analogy, Case C-373/11 Panellinios Syndesmos Viomichanion Metapoiisis Kapnou  [2013] ECR I-0000, paragraphs 35 and 36).