The Queen v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and others and Federation of Highlands and Islands Fishermen and others.
Date: 1995-10-17
30 Before the third question can be answered, it should be noted that although the Court may not, in proceedings under Article 177 of the Treaty, give a ruling on the compatibility of national rules with the Treaty, it has jurisdiction to provide the national court with a ruling on the interpretation of Community law in order to enable it to assess such compatibility for the purpose of deciding the case before it (judgment in Case C-196/89 Nespoli and Crippa [1990] ECR I-3647, paragraph 8).
37 The Court has consistently held that "in pursuing the objectives of the common agricultural policy, the Community institutions must secure the permanent harmonization made necessary by any conflicts between those objectives taken individually and, where necessary, give any one of them temporary priority in order to satisfy the demands of the economic factors or conditions in view of which their decisions are made" (see, in particular, the judgment in Case C-280/93 Germany v Council [1994] ECR I-4973, paragraph 47).
45 As regards Article 6 of the Treaty, the Court has consistently held that the application of national legislation cannot be held contrary to the principle of non-discrimination merely because other Member States allegedly apply rules which are less strict (see the judgment in Case C-379/92 Peralta [1994] ECR I-3453, paragraph 48).
46 According to the principle of non-discrimination which is enshrined in the second subparagraph of Article 40(3) of the Treaty and incorporates the prohibition of discrimination laid down in Article 6(1) of the Treaty, comparable situations must not be treated differently and different situations must not be treated in the same way unless such treatment is objectively justified (see the judgment in Case 106/83 Sermide v Cassa Conguaglio Zucchero [1984] ECR 4209, paragraph 28).
52 It is true that Articles 30 and 34 on the abolition of quantitative restrictions and all measures having equivalent effect on imports and exports are regarded as an integral part of the common organization of the market. It follows that once the Community has, pursuant to Article 40 of the Treaty, adopted such legislation in a given sector, the Member States are under an obligation to refrain from taking any measure which might undermine or create exceptions to it (see the judgment in Case 83/78 Pigs Marketing Board v Redmond [1978] ECR 2347, paragraphs 55 and 56).
53 Nevertheless, that finding does not prevent the competent authorities of a Member State from adopting national measures on the terms provided for by Community legislation forming part of a common organization of the market.
55 With regard to the alleged breach of those principles, it is settled case-law that both the right to property and the freedom to pursue a trade or profession form part of the general principles of Community law. However, those principles are not absolute, but must be viewed in relation to their social function. Consequently, the exercise of the right to property and the freedom to pursue a trade or profession may be restricted, particularly in the context of a common organization of a market, provided that those restrictions in fact correspond to objectives of general interest pursued by the Community and do not constitute in relation to the aim pursued a disproportionate and intolerable interference, impairing the very substance of the rights guaranteed (see the judgment in Case C-280/93 Germany v Council, cited above, paragraph 78).
57 Nor are those measures contrary to the principle of proportionality. The Commission decision approving the MAGP leaves the United Kingdom considerable freedom to evaluate and choose the measures to be taken in order to implement the plan. When considering whether the exercise of such freedom is lawful, the courts cannot substitute their own evaluation for that of the competent authority, but must restrict themselves to examining whether the evaluation of the latter contains a patent error or constitutes a misuse of power (see, in particular, the judgments in Case 57/72 Westzucker v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle Zucker [1973] ECR 321, paragraph 14, and Case 78/74 Deuka v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle Getreide [1975] ECR 421, paragraph 9).