Ministère public v Jean-Jacques Paris (C-204/88)

Contents

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber)13 December 1989^noteIn Case C-204/88REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the tribunal de police (Local Criminal Court), Rethel (Ardennes, France), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court betweenMinistère public (Public Prosecutor's Office)andJean-Jacques ParisTHE COURT (First Chamber)composed of: Sir Gordon Slynn, President of Chamber, R. Joliet and G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, Judges,Advocate General: G. TesauroRegistrar: B. Pastor, Administratorafter considering the observations submitted on behalf of— Jean-Jacques Paris by Luc Bihl, of the Paris Bar,— the United Kingdom by J. A. Gensmantel, of the Treasury Solicitor's Department, acting as Agent,— the Commission of the European Communities by Patrick Hetsch, a member of its Legal Department, acting as Agent,having regard to the Report for the Hearing and further to the hearing on 14 June 1989,after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General delivered at the sitting on 26 September 1989,gives the following

Judgment

1By an order of 10 May 1988, which was received at the Court on 27 July 1988, the tribunal de police, Rethel (Ardennes, France), referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 177 of the EEC Treaty a question on the interpretation of Article 15 of Regulation (EEC) No 2772/75 of the Council of 29 October 1975 on marketing standards for eggs (Official Journal 1975, L 282, p. 56).

2That question was raised in criminal proceedings against Jean-Jacques Paris, who was charged with offering for sale fresh eggs marked with the date on which they were laid, an offence contrary to Articles 11 and 15 of Regulation No 2772/75 of the Council (hereinafter referred to as ‘the contested regulation’).

3That regulation, which was adopted on the basis of Regulation (EEC) No 2771/75 of the Council of 29 October 1975 on the common organization of the market in eggs (Official Journal 1975, L 282, p. 49), lays down marketing standards for eggs, which are regarded as necessary in order to improve the quality of eggs and facilitate their sale, in the interest of producers, traders and consumers. Those standards include, in particular, criteria for grading eggs (Articles 1 to 13), common provisions on packing (Articles 16 to 22) and provisions on the checks to be carried out (Articles 26 to 28) and the penalties to be imposed (Article 29).

4Article 2(1) of the regulation provides that eggs marketed within the Community by way of business or trade must satisfy the provisions of the regulation. According to Article 15, ‘eggs shall not bear any marks other than those provided for in this regulation’. The marks which may be stamped on eggs are listed in Article 11, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1831/84 of 19 June 1984 (Official Journal 1984, L 172, p. 2), and do not include the date on which the eggs were laid; the packing period or the packing date may, however, be indicated.

5Without challenging the facts alleged against him, Mr Paris called in question the validity of Article 15 of Regulation No 2772/75, arguing that it was contrary to the consumer's basic right to information and to the Treaty of Rome.

6Taking the view that reliable methods for recording the date on which eggs are laid had been developed since the adoption of the regulation in 1975 and that Article 15 of the regulation appeared to conflict with the Treaty of Rome, in particular Article 86, the tribunal de police decided to refer a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling ‘on the interpretation of Article 15 of the Regulation of 29 October 1975 in the light of the Treaty of Rome’.

7Reference is made to the Report for the Hearing for a fuller account of the relevant legislation and the facts of the case, the course of the procedure and the written observations submitted to the Court, which are mentioned or discussed hereinafter only in so far as is necessary for the reasoning of the Court.

8It is apparent from the documents before the Court that although the question submitted expressly relates only to the interpretation of Article 15 of the contested regulation, the national court is in fact uncertain of the validity of that provision in the light, in particular, of Article 86 of the Treaty. It should be noted, moreover, that the wording of Article 15 leaves no room for doubt that it prohibits traders from marking the eggs marketed by them with the date on which they were laid; nor has that interpretation been challenged either in the written observations or at the hearing. It must therefore be concluded that the question referred to the Court relates in substance to the validity of Article 15.

9According to the defendant in the main proceedings, by prohibiting the marking of eggs with the date on which they were laid Article 15 infringes the consumer's right to precise and truthful information regarding the freshness and quality of the eggs.

10The provision of information to consumers is one of the objectives pursued by the contested regulation. According to the 12th recital in its preamble, ‘the consumer must be able to distinguish between eggs of different quality and weight grades; ... this requirement can be met by marking the eggs.. ’.

11As the Council and the Commission have rightly maintained, the important point is that the information supplied to the consumer should be reliable and therefore easily verifiable by the national authorities. According to the Commission, however, checks on the producer's premises, which would be essential in order to ensure that the date on which the eggs were laid is accurately recorded, are impractical because producers are widely dispersed. That is why both the Commission and the experts meeting within the Council consider that only the existing system, based on checks carried out primarily in packing centres, which are less numerous and less widely dispersed than producers' establishments, makes it possible to ensure beyond doubt that the information supplied to the consumer, such as the packing date, is correct.

12Without denying the existence of reliable technical methods for marking eggs with the date on which they were laid, as referred to by the national court, the Commission has emphasized that such methods are in fact accessible only to the major producers, which are capable of making the necessary investments in that regard. Article 15 of the regulation, on the other hand, provides for a reliable system of marking which is accessible to every producer. It therefore constitutes the only method of ensuring that all Community producers enjoy equivalent conditions in which to sell their products and thereby makes it possible to avoid any effect on trading conditions within the Community, in accordance with the 15th recital in the preamble to Regulation No 2772/75.

13As the Court has often stated, the Community institutions enjoy a broad discretion in assessing a complex economic situation. In reviewing the legality of the exercise of that discretion the Court must confine itself to considering whether it is vitiated by a manifest error or misuse of power, or whether the authority in question has manifestly exceeded the limits of its discretion.

14In view of the need to reconcile the interests of producers and of consumers, and the at times divergent interests of different categories of producers, the Community institutions do not appear to have committed any manifest errors in their overall assessment of the situation and the nature of the measures required or to have exceeded, in one way or another, the general limits of their discretion.

15The defendant in the main proceedings further contends that Article 15 entails an abusive practice contrary to Article 86 of the Treaty inasmuch as it restricts technical developments to the detriment of consumers. Article 86 refers to the conduct of undertakings occupying a dominant position on the market and cannot therefore be applied to a legislative provision adopted by the Council. However, the second subparagraph of Article 40(3) of the Treaty, which prohibits any discrimination between producers or consumers within the Community, is intended to guarantee equal conditions of competition for all the traders concerned. By laying down common standards for the marketing of eggs within the territory of the Community the contested regulation has complied with that principle.

16Accordingly, the answer to be given to the national court must be that consideration of the question raised has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 15 of Regulation No 2772/75 of the Council of 29 October 1975 on marketing standards for eggs in so far as it contains a prohibition on marking eggs with dates, such as the date on which they were laid, other than those provided for in the regulation.

Costs

17The costs incurred by the United Kingdom and by the Commission of the European Communities, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. Since these proceedings are, in so far as the parties to the main proceedings are concerned, in the nature of a step in the proceedings pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.

Operative part

On those grounds,THE COURT (First Chamber),in answer to the question submitted to it by the tribunal de police, Rethel, hereby rules: Consideration of the question raised has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 15 of Regulation (EEC) No 2772/75 of the Council of 29 October 1975 on marketing standards for eggs in so far as it contains a prohibition on marking eggs with dates, such as the date on which they were laid, other than those provided for in the regulation.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 13 December 1989.