C-68/86

UNITED KINGDOM v COUNCIL

OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL LENZ delivered on 14 October 1987*

Mr President, adopt the decision mentioned in Article 5 of Members of the Court, Directive 81/602. This was now to be done before 31 December 1985.

A —Facts

3. The Commission, which, in accordance with the instruction contained in Article 8 of Directive 81/602, had set up a scientific 1. On 31 July 1981 Council Directive group to examine the effects of the five 81/602 'concerning the prohibition of substances named in Article 5 of Directive certain substances having a hormonal action 81/602, commenced the action required by and of any substances having a thyrostatic Article 5 by adopting a proposal in June action' was adopted. 1 It provides above all 1984. 3 Pursuant to that proposal, the that the substances mentioned in Article 2 Member States were to be allowed to permit are not to be administered to farm animals three of the five substances mentioned in and in Article 4 that the Member States may Article 5 of Directive 81/602 to be admin­ authorize the administration of certain istered to farm animals for fattening substances to animals for therapeutic (and purposes. When consulted on the matter, similar) purposes. According to Article 5, the Economic and Social Committee stated the Council, acting unanimously on a in an Opinion of December 1984 that it proposal from the Commission, was to take could not agree to the proposal. 4Likewise, a decision as soon as possible on the admin­ in a Resolution of 11 October 1985, the istering to farm animals of five hormones European Parliament considered that arti­ for fattening purposes. In addition, Article 7 ficial or natural hormones should not be required the Member States to ensure that permitted to be used for growth purposes farm animals, the meat of such animals and and called on the Commission to incor­ the meat products obtained therefrom were porate in its proposal the amendments subjected to controls, the detailed rules of suggested by the Parliament. 5 which were also to be laid down by the Council acting unanimously.

regulation. Under the new proposal, dero 6. As regards the contents of the directive, gations from Article 2 of Directive 81/602 which was published in Official Journal (prohibition on the administering of certain 1985, L 382 at p. 228, at this stage I would substances to farm animals) were to be merely say that it contains, in Article 1, a permitted only in accordance with Article 4 definition of therapeutic treatment and of that directive (administering of certain provides that it is to be prohibited for substances to farm animals for therapeutic animals intended for fattening; in Anicie 2 and similar purposes) and it was provided it provides that any derogation from Article that three natural hormones could be 2 of Directive 81/602 is permissible only in administered to farm animals for therapeutic accordance with Article 4 of that directive

5. That is what happened. After eight Member States had expressed their consent (the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Denmark were against the use of the written procedure) it was then declared in a letter of 31 December 1985 from the Secretary-General of the Council that 8. My task now is to examine whether Directive 85/649 had been adopted by way those criticisms are justified or of the written procedure. whether — as the Council and the Commission, which supports its arguments, 7 — Official Journal 1985, C 313, p. 4. consider — the application must be 8 — Official Journal 1985, C 351 p. 1. dismissed.

9. There have been no proper objections to 12. (2) It was also contended by the the admissibility of the application. Council that, as far as the alleged However, in its written submissions the infringements of procedural requirements Council makes some observations which can are concerned (that is to say, failure to state be put into the category of objections to proper reasons, disregard of the Council's admissibility in the wider sense. I will Rules of Procedure and failure to consult examine those points first. other Community institutions), the existence of an interest in the annulment of the directive on those grounds must be denied 10. (1) It is stated, for example, that the because it may be assumed that if the applicant has not been able to show that it directive were annulled a measure of suffered any damage as a result of the fact identical substance would be adopted. complained of, namely that the contested directive was adopted solely on the basis of Article 43 of the EEC Treaty by a qualified majority. Since there was no chance of 13. The point to be made here is that there achieving unanimity, it would have been have indeed been cases (staff cases, for necessary to maintain the legal situation example; see the judgment in Case 432/85 11) prevailing under Directive 81/602, which in which the existence of an interest in chal­ means that, given the existence of different lenging a measure for insufficient reasoning provisions in the Member States on the was denied on the ground that once the hormones mentioned in Article 5 of decision was annulled it was to be expected Directive 81/602, distortions of competition that the same decision would be adopted. and obstacles to trade would have continued To proceed on the basis of such consider­ to exist, which would certainly have been to ations in this case, however, seems to me the United Kingdom's disadvantage as well. ill-advised. It must be borne in mind first of all that, if the directive were to be annulled on the grounds mentioned, a decision on 11. In reply to that observation, however, it this matter would then have to be taken was rightly pointed out that when applying involving two further Member States. Given to the Court a Member State does not have that fact alone, it is not certain that a 9 to prove an interest, or, as is stated in the measure identical in substance to the 10 judgment in Case 230/81, it is not annulled measure would actually be adopted required to prove a legitimate interest, (even if, as may be seen from the Council's which is what the objection is really minutes, Spain and Portugal decided to requiring. It was submitted that, even forgo consultation at the end of 1985). assuming the conclusion that the legal Another possibly important point which was situation prevailing under Directive 81/602 made at the hearing is that disussions in was more unfavourable to the applicant to GATT on the effects of the contested directive are apparently now taking place 9 — See the judgment of 26 March 1987 in Case 45/86 with the United States, which does not Commission vCouncil [1987] ECR M93. 10 — Judgment of 10 February 1983 in Case 230/81 Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v European Parliament [1983] ECR 11 — Judgment of 20 May 1987 in Case 432/85 Souna v 255. Commission[1987]ECR 2229.

16. The applicant submits that recourse to Article 43 is insufficient because the 18. (a) In putting forward that argument contested directive pursues not only aims of the intervener overlooks Article 38 (2), agricultural policy but further aims, namely which states that, save as otherwise provided the approximation of legislation concerning in Articles 39 to 46, the rules laid down for the safeguarding of the interests and health the establishment of the common market are of consumers. It further considers it to apply to agricultural products. This impractical to distinguish between the means that the aforementioned general primary purpose and the secondary purpose provisions may possibly have to give way in of such measures because in many cases this so far as Articles 39 to 46 are to be seen as is extraordinarily difficult and that in the containing special provisions. As is stated in 12 present case it is clear from the history of the judgment in Case 177/78, Article 38 the directive that the predominant intention (2) necessitates 'precedence ... for the was to adopt measures of approximation in the field of health protection (which, in its 12 — Judgment of 26 June 1979 in Case 177/78 Pits and Bacon Commission v McCarren and Company Limited[1979] ECR view, would suggest recourse to Article 100 2161, paragraph 9, at p. 2186.

UNITED KINGDOM v COUNCIL

19. At the hearing the parties again went lenged practice shows, allows quite into the relationship between Article 100 far-reaching regulation of the markets, and Article 43 in comparison with the relationship between Article 235 and Article including approximation measures (as just 113 subsequent to the Court's judgment of one example I refer to the quality standards 26 March 1987 9on generalized tariff pref laid down in Regulation No 1035/72). Then erences. On this question, the Court stated there is Article 43, which concerns the in that case that: establishment of a common agricultural policy in accordance with the objectives set out in Article 39. That this includes extensive powers is to be deduced not only from the parts of Article 43 which deal with the instruments available to the Council, which provide for the replacement of the 'It follows from the very wording of Article national market organizations (when equi 235 that its use as the legal basis for a valent safeguards must be offered) and measure is justified only where no other which emphasize that conditions similar to provision of the Treaty gives the those existing in a national market must be Community institutions the necessary power

Markus Stölting v HZA Hamburg-Jonas [1979] ECR 713, at cannot therefore derive any support for its p. 720. case from the wording of Article 100. 14 — Judgment of 30 September 1982 in Case 108/81 G.R_ Amylum v Council[1982] ECR 3107, at p. 3137. 15 — Judgment of 20 April 1978 in Joined Cases 80 and 81/77 9 — See the judgment of 26 March 1987 in Case 45/ 86 Commissionnaires réunis Sàrl and Les fils de Henri Ramel Commissioni Council[1987] ECR 1493. Sàrl v Receveur des douanes [1978] ECR 927, at p. 947.

25. For support for that view reference may be made to some of the objectives laid down 22. It may therefore readily be assumed in Article 39, which, as I have shown, are of that, by the very nature of the matter, a great importance for Article 43. For common agricultural policy also encom­ example, it was correctly submitted with passes far-reaching approximation measures regard to Article 39 (1) (a) that increasing and that therefore recourse to Article 100 is not necessary in this sphere. agricultural productivity is also to be understood in the sense of improving production and that when mention is also made of the rational development of agri­ 23. (b) As far as the view expressed by the cultural production, that is to say the United Kingdom Government is concerned, sensible utilization of the factors of it may be readily acknowledged that the production, this means appropriate contested measure pursues a number of production for marketing purposes, that is different concerns, namely to standardize to say production which takes account of conditions of production in one specific the interests of the consumer, which were aspect (in order to guarantee unimpeded mentioned in the preamble to Directive trade without distortions of competition) 81/602 and were made particularly clear in and to safeguard the health of consumers as the aforementioned resolution of the well as simply to protect their interests. That European Parliament as well as in the is the impression to be gained from all the Opinion of the Economic and Social preparations and from the identifiable Committee. (The fact that, in the applicant's positions of all the parties; indeed, there view, such considerations did not clearly was no dispute on this point in the emerge in the consultation leading to the proceedings. adoption of the contested directive can of course not be decisive for present purposes because the Court's concern is to examine objectively the question of the legal basis for 24. Nevertheless, to deal with the the contested directive.) It was also rightly applicant's point that it is extremely difficult pointed out with regard to Article 39 (1) (c)

27. Consequently, in the case of a measure 26. In addition, important conclusions on which uniformly regulates conditions of this matter may be drawn from the case-law production for cattle (i.e. an agricultural of the Court. I would remind the Court of, product) in one specific respect, namely the for example, its judgment in Case 45/82, 16 use of hormones, it has to be recognized which concerned the fixing of minimum that it is a measure of economic policy in requirements as to quality in the processing the agricultural sphere and that accordingly of skimmed milk into animal feed, a matter (even if there is a certain connection with governed by Community regulations. As other spheres (consumer protection) of the regards the concern to bring about kind considered immaterial in Case 45/86) unimpeded trade free from distortion of it was not necessary to base the directive in competition, I would also remind the Court question on Article 100 of the EEC Treaty of its judgment in Joined Cases 80 and as well. In contrast, I would add for the 81/77 in which it was emphasized that sake of completeness that in my estimation common market organizations ensured no decisive conclusions can be drawn from 20 conditions for trade within the Community the judgment in Case 28/84 , which was similar to those existing in a national market also referred to in the proceedings. and that since the end of the transitional Although it was found in that judgment that period the extensive powers granted to the animal-feed directives were based on Community institutions in the conduct of Articles 43 and 100 of the EEC Treaty, and agricultural policy must be exercised from stated that they therefore came under both the perspective of the unity of the market. 17 the common agricultural policy and the

30. If that is the case, however, it also 28. (c) In so far as the applicant has also seems clear (and this brings me straight to referred in this connection to a previous the applicant's complaint of insufficient extensive and different Council practice reasons) that there was certainly no reason (basing its directives on both Article 43 and to explain in the contested directive why a Article 100 in similar cases), it seems to me previous practice was not continued. unnecessary to consider in detail the Reasons had to be given only for the question whether comparable cases were measure adopted and since on that subject it reallyinvolved and whether there was in fact is clear that concerns falling within the a consistent practice of that kind (I would ambit of aims of agricultural policy are only mention that the Council still took being furthered, the applicant's charge that pains to show that a number of comparable procedural requirements were infringed is measures have similarly been adopted solely surely not justified. on the basis of Article 43).

omits any reference to Directive 81/602 competition (which is stated clearly enough (although it was adopted to supplement that in the first two paragraphs of the statement directive and to fulfil the obligation laid of reasons). If problems concerning the down in Article 5 thereof); that the relevant safeguarding of health also played some Commission proposal is not precisely ident­ part, this was also made sufficiently clear in ified; that there is no reference to the the first recital (whichmentions the effects scientific report commissioned by the on human health). In those circumstances, I Commission (which the Council had to take see no deficiency of reasons of the kind into account) and that no reasons are given perceived by the applicant. for disregarding the findings in that report.

OPINION OF MR LENZ — CASE 68/86

expected by the applicant was rightly question one of the matters falling under omitted in the preamble to an act addressed 'experiences acquired' referred to in Article to the Member States each of which was 8 of Directive 81/602. Once the emphasis of fully aware of how it came to be adopted. the intended measure centred on that In those circumstances, to speak of a failure aspect, however, there was really no reason to state reasons is just as inappropriate as it to examine the health problem in particular, 22 was in Case 22/70 Commission v Council, which had evidently been the main focus of in which it was contended that the interest in the past, and so the fact that in Commission's participation in the work of the preamble to the contested directive the the Council had afforded it all the legal Council did not go into the partial findings safeguards which Article 190 was designed of the scientific group, which the to ensure for third parties affected by the Commission did make available to the measures mentioned therein. Council, certainly cannot be regarded as a failure to state reasons.

UNITED KINGDOM v COUNCIL

merely because what the Council previously of estoppel in English law (which is regarded as the correct path was departed probably what the applicant has in mind), from; such an infringement would exist only that is to say, the rule that where a person if a provision of the Treaty had been has caused another to believe in the infringed; however, as I have shown, no existence of a particular state of affairs and infringement of a Treaty provision arose to act on that belief, the former is not through the ignoring of Article 100 of the entitled to rely on the existence of a EEC Treaty. different state of affairs.

OPINION OF MR LENZ — CASE 68/86

tiations (as it mentioned) with national therewith — there would have been no institutions and associations which could reason to fear any damage to Community not subsequently be deprived of their basis. interests. In any event, all that was involved was hearings and the sounding of the position of interested parties and the way in which a measure is to be adopted at Community 48. If one considers the wording of Article level can scarcely play a crucial role in that 6 of the Council's Rules of Procedure one regard. might actually be inclined to regard the United Kingdom's objection as well founded. In any event, it would scarcely seem possible to maintain — as has 46. Since, however, it thus becomes clear moreover been attempted — that the Rules that the objection based on the aforesaid of Procedure are more 'of a directory provisions of directives is misconceived ab nature' (and therefore more or less initio, there is no further need to consider non-binding) on the basis of an unpublished the question, on which argument has also declaration made when the Rules of been presented, namely whether the Procedure were adopted (to the effect that contested directive is in fact the measure the rules laid down may be improved and referred to in Article 5 of Directive 81/602 amended by addenda) or by arguing that or whether, as the Council and the the Rules of Procedure were adopted Commission maintain, it is not that measure pursuant to Article 5 of the Merger Treaty as the contested directive extends beyond by a simple majority only and that hence it the compass of Article 5 of Directive 81/602 is possible to deviate from them in excep­ (since it does not only govern the use of tional cases on the basis of a qualified hormones but also lays down a general majority (I do not intend to discuss these prohibition on their use and, in addition, points in detail). contains provisions relating to controls and imports).

UNITED KINGDOM v COUNCIL

50. If the same approach is adopted to the cember, which, it is said, had already been Council's Rules of Procedure the obvious discussed at meetings of a higher level. It assumption is that Article 6 is intended to was discussed for hours on end on 19 cover circumstances in which a matter is to December (the discussion covered in be dealt with in writing only (without its particular, as we have been told, the being discussed by the members of the problem of the legal basis under Council), which may occur from time to consideration) and thereafter the picture time in the case of less complex issues or which had already emerged in early after a matter has been thoroughly prepared December crystallized. Consequently the in committees of experts. But it does not impression must have arisen that the matter seem to be designed to cover cases which had not only been adequately prepared at have been extensively discussed in Council national level but had also been discussed in meetings. In my view it has been cogently the Council, and hence was ready to be argued that when the Council is 'in session' voted on. the general rules apply to its decision-taking

In the light of everything that the Court Permanent Representative states that the has been told, it must be considered in this United Kingdom voted against the proposal because it considered that Article 43 alone 26 — Judgment of 6 March 1978 in Case 7/77 von Wüllerstorff v did not provide a sufficient legal basis and Commission [1978] ECR 769, paragraphs 6 and 7, at p. 778. there was no scientific evidence justifying a 27 — Judgment of 30 October 1975 in Case 23/75 Rey Soda v ban on the use of hormones, it could be Cassa Conguaglio Zucchero [1975] ECR 1279. considered in any event that the points in 28 — Article 148 (2) of the EEC Treaty.

57. Apparently the applicant did not raise 54. If in view of these circumstances there objections with regard to the language was a qualified majority — and there was versions; there was no longer any scope for such a majority for this text — in favour of complaints of the kind raised in the letter of formal adoption by the written procedure, 31 December 1985 from the United this cannot properly be regarded as being a Kingdom Permanent Representative and case for Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure. hence the Secretary-General of the Council There is no reference to that provision was entitled to publish the directive in the either in the minutes of the Council meeting Offiaal Journal of the European Communities of 19 December 1985 or in the Secretary- pursuant to Article 13 of the Council's General's telex message of 23 December Rules of Procedure. 1985. The approval of the translations was not an 'act of the Council on an urgent 29 matter' but the 'written procedure concerning the adoption in the official 58. Moreover, on this assessment it is then languages of the Community of a Council also irrelevant whether in fact — which the directive . .. '. 30 Accordingly, what was applicant doubts — it is possible to consider involved was not the taking of the decision that 'an urgent matter' was involved. on the matter (that is to say, on the Commission's proposal) but the approval of 59. In the event that it should nevertheless 29 — Article 6 (1). be considered necessary to clarify that 30 — See telex message of 23 December 1985 from the Secretary-General of the Council under 'Subject'; my emphasis. 31 — Article 148 (1) of the EEC Treaty.

63. (aa) It must be granted as far as regards the involvement of the Parliament, which is 60. Furthermore, it is also without signif­ essential under Article 43 of the EEC icance (precisely because in reality no Treaty, that the draft of June 1984 on infringement of the Council's Rules of which it was consulted differed considerably Procedure is involved) that the directive's from the later drafts to which I have statement of reasons does not mention a referred, in particular because it provided departure from the requirements of Article 6 that the use of three hormones could be of the Rules of Procedure. authorized. In that respect therefore, recourse cannot be had to the case-law according to which no harm is done by omitting to consult Parliament again if 'considered as a whole the substance ... [of the proposal] on which the Parliament was 61. Lastly, it must also be said in this 33 consulted has not been altered' or connection that it is not quite clear what the according to which further consultation is applicant hopes to achieve by its reference unnecessary if the amendment to the initial to the fact that the text of the contested proposal constituted 'a change of method directive published in the Official Journal 34 rather than of substance'. differed somewhat in certain respects from the version provided to it. Under Article 191 of the EEC Treaty the authoritative version is of course the one which is notified, that is 64. However, one must agree with the to say, provided to the addressee (publi­ Council's view that on other grounds it is cation is not necessary; rather the Council is not possible to object that the Parliament to decide, under Article 15 of the Rules of was not consulted again in autumn 1985. Procedure, whether publication should take The Council rightly refers to the second place for information purposes). If, paragraph of Article 149 of the EEC Treaty, however, it appears that the version notified which provides as follows: 'As long as the still does not contain a completely error-free Council has not acted, the Commission may translation, it can certainly not be proved on alter its original proposal, in particular the basis of such an occurrence — which where the Assembly has been consulted on may always arise from time to time — that the matter adopted was substantively not yet 33 — Judgment of 15 July 1970 in Case 41/69 ACF Chemiefarma ready and hence was not suitable to be v Commission [1970] ECR 661, paragraphs 178 and 179, at adopted by means of the written procedure. p. 702. 34 — Judgment of 4 February 1982 in Case 1253/79 Battaglia v Commission [1982] ECR 297, paragraph 24, at pp. 318 and 32 — Official Journal 1984, C 134, p. 1. 319.

that proposal.' It is also relevant that involvement of the Parliament is concerned the Parliament came out against the and in that regard it is also indicative that Commission's draft of June 1984. In a the applicant did not go further into this resolution of 11 October 1985 5 the point in the oral proceedings (even though Parliament stated, inter alia, that it did not it did not expressly abandon it). approve the proposed authorization of the three natural hormones except for thera­ peutic purposes. It noted than the ban on artificial and natural hormones for fattening purposes would inevitably affect trade with 66. (bb) I can now deal very briefly with third-country suppliers of meat products the question whether the Economic and and called for immediate discussions to be Social Committee should have been held with the trading partners concerned consulted again. with a view to securing a total ban on imports of meat which had been treated with those substances. It also rejected the authorization of artificial and natural hormones as growth promoters. Accord­ 67. In that regard it is sufficient to state ingly, one can only observe that in the case that Article 43 of the EEC Treaty, which, in of the contested directive the Commission my view, affords a sufficient legal basis for and the Council took the Parliament's the contested directive, does not even Opinion into account and hence, as in Case provide for consultation of the Economic 1253/79, renewed consultation could be and Social Committee. In addition, as the dispensed with since the amendments Council has pointed out, the Economic and effected 'correspond broadly to the wish Social Committee, which in fact was 34 consulted before the measure was adopted, expressed by the Parliament'. In so far as other differences can be discerned in the reacted in the same way as the Parliament. various drafts (they have been discussed at Since the Commission took this into length in the pleadings), it must be said that account, there was therefore certainly not some of them concerned only procedural the slightest reason — on political grounds questions or points which have become for instance — to submit the last Com­ devoid of substance as a result of the mission draft back to the Economic and adoption of Directive 85/358 of 16 January Social Committee. 1985 on control measures. This certainly affords no basis for arguing that the Parliament's rights have been infringed. It is also significant in that connection that the Parliament, which was kept informed by the 68. (3) I must now consider the criticism of Commission, has not insisted on delivering a the content of the contested measure, further opinion and has not intervened in which, in the applicant's view, cannot be these proceedings. justified on various grounds.

the directive (distortion of the conditions of applying in the Community as far as exports competition and barrier to intra-Community to the Community are concerned — will be trade) do not warrant a general prohibition otherwise free and could use the resulting on the use of hormones. Under Directive cost advantages to make their offers more 81/602 (according to Article 5 of which attractive for purchasers in the Community. national regulations were to continue to apply to five hormones) the duty to comply with the general provisions of the Treaty (for instance, Articles 7 and 30) applied in that regard. It is argued that — despite the In my opinion that argument calls for the existence of differing legal situations in the following observations. Member States — this prevented serious barriers to trade from arising, one significant consideration being that, according to the findings of the aforemen­ tioned report of the scientific group (which 72. (a) In so far as the applicant states that the Council has not gone into), there is no the health of the consumer is demonstrably danger to health (and hence that reason not endangered by the use of hormones in could not be given to justify prohibitions of the raising of farm animals, it must be said imports). So far as the interests of the in reply that not only, as has already been consumer are concerned, sufficient account mentioned, was that aspect not the prime could be taken of them by making it consideration when the directive was issued compulsory to put appropriate marking on but that it is also the case that the scientific meat treated with hormones. report on which it is based deals with only three natural hormones and does not unequivocally support the applicant's claim (since its conclusions, on the one hand, refer to use 'under the appropriate conditions' and, on the other, also stress the 70. It is further argued in that connection need for control programmes). that the prohibition embodied in the directive is not appropriate to achieve the desired objective (and therefore pointless) since it is completely impossible to distinguish between meat from beasts to which natural hormones have been admin­ 73. It is also indicative that the applicant istered and meat from untreated beasts. only refers to serious barriers to trade not existing under the previous legal situation (it did not observe, it states, any references to such serious trade barriers in the course of the preparation of the directive). But this acknowledges that under the earlier legal 71. The applicant also regards the contested situation, as it existed under Directive measure as constituting an infringement of 81/602, some barriers were wholly the principle of Community preference. It conceivable and it matches the Com­ considers that it will give rise to a dete­ mission's statement to the effect that an rioration in production conditions in the opinion was addressed under Article 169 of Community (as a result of increased costs), the EEC Treaty to one Member State on whilst, on the other hand, producers in account of failure to comply with the status non-member countries — although having quo and that proceedings were initiated to comply with the production conditions under Article 169 against another Member

State on account of import restrictions in of the prohibition on the administration of regard to hormone treatment. However, hormones. This being so, the test laid down that is sufficient ground for action on part by the case-law in such circumstances, of the Community to secure unrestricted namely whether a measure is patently trade and to alter the legal situation unsuited to the achievement of its objective obtaining under the previous directive. This (see the judgment in Case 138/78) 35 can is because Article 30 of the EEC certainly not be answered in the affirmative. Treaty — as the constantly recurring Furthermore, the contested directive also formula in the case-law makes clear — covers the periphery of the use of hormones requires trade to be entirely unimpeded and in stock-raising (see the provisions in Article not even minor infringements can be left out 4 intended for manufacturers of hormones) of account. and, for the purposes of the overall assessment of the issues discussed by the applicant, Directive 85/358, with its control provisions (inter alia governing the manu­ facture of substances), and Directive 36 86/469 'concerning the examination of 74. As the directive's statement of reasons animals and fresh meat for the presence of shows, it aims in addition to eliminate residues' are also relevant, both of those distortions of competition resulting from the measures being designed to underpin the fact that the substances covered by it are prohibition of the use of hormones. authorized in some Member States and not in others; in other words, the directive aims at the creation of uniform conditions of production in the Community. It certainly cannot be said, however, that that was the case under the legal situation obtaining under Directive 81/602. It is moreover equally certain that in view of that important aim of the directive the scientific report mentioned by the applicant did not have to be considered in depth and there could also be no question that it would be 76. (c) Lastly, as regards the principle of sufficient in the interests of the consumer Community preference, on the one hand for imported products produced with the reference should be made to Article 6 (7) of use of hormones to be appropriately the contested directive, which provides for marked. a control programme to be drawn up regarding imports from non-member countries in order to ensure that imports do not receive more favourable treatment than Community products. Secondly, as regards the assumption that producers in third 75. (b) As regards the view, also expressed countries might obtain cost advantages, in by the applicant, that it is not possible, since particular when they export to the natural hormones are present in quantity in Community, this raises the question, inter meat anyway, to determine by inspection of alia, whether this is really a genuine danger the meat whether hormones have been or just an unsubstantiated fear; in any event, added, it has been rightly objected that no evidence has been adduced in support of 35 — Judgment of 21 February 1979 in Case 138/78, cited above, [1979] ECR 713. this view and hence for the ineffectiveness 36 — Official Journal 1986, L 275, p. 36.