The Court of First Instance upholds a Council directive designed to prohibit the administration of beta-agonists to food-producing animals.
Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH (BI Vetmedica) is a company which produces veterinary medicines containing clenbuterol, a beta-agonist. In 1995, its turnover for those products in Member States of the Union was over 13 million DM.
Beta-agonists are substances used to treat respiratory disorders in both humans and animals. However, they also have anabolic effects close to those produced by growth hormones. Administered in doses far higher than those prescribed for therapeutic purposes, they have a "redistribution effect" which increases the meat/fat ratio of animals; it is estimated that an animal's meat content can be increased by between 10 and 26%, while its fat content is reduced by between 10 and 30%.
Beta-agonists authorised in the European Community are considered safe when used for therapeutic purposes. However, their use as a growth promoter (for the artificial fattening of animals) may entail risks for human health, the main symptoms being an increase in heart rate, severe headaches and a reduction in blood pressure.
Following a number of cases of food poisoning observed in Member States, the Council adopted a directive in 1996, aimed at prohibiting the administration of beta-agonists to food-producing animals, subject to certain clearly defined therapeutic exceptions.
C.H. Boehringer Sohn and its wholly-owned subsidiary BI Vetmedica have applied to the Court of First Instance for the annulment of the provisions imposing a general ban, which have serious economic consequences for them.
The Court has, amongst other things, assessed whether the principle of proportionality has been complied with. According to that principle, measures taken by Community institutions must not exceed the bounds of what is appropriate and necessary to attain the objectives lawfully pursued by the measure in question. The inconvenience caused must not be excessive in relation to the aims pursued.
In this case, the Court has held that the importance of the aims pursued by the directive -- the protection of public health and the re-establishment of consumer confidence -- is capable of justifying adverse economic consequences for certain traders. Bearing in mind, first, the growing use of beta-agonists for the artificial fattening of cattle, and, secondly, the difficulty when checks are made in distinguishing between such abuse and lawful use for therapeutic purposes, the Community authorities did not make an obvious error of assessment by holding that the general ban on those substances was the most appropriate solution from the point of view of protecting public health. The Court emphasises that protection of public health must take priority over all other considerations and therefore upholds the legality of the directive.
Unofficial document for the use of the media, for which the Court of Justice does not undertake responsibility. Available in all official languages.
For the full text of the judgment, please consult our Internet page www.curia.eu.int at around 1500 hours today.
For further information, please contact Fionnuala Connolly, tel: (352) 43 03 3355 fax: (352) 43 03 2500.