Súdny dvor Európskej únie·12.7.1989

C-131/87

ECLI:EU:C:1989:308

Súd: Súdny dvor Európskej únie
IČS: 61987CC0131
Zdroj: eur-lex.europa.eu ↗

OPINION OF MR LENZ —CASE C-131/87

OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL LEN2 delivered on 12 July 1989 *

Mr President, 3. To that end it was thought necessary Members of the Court, to amend Directive 72/462/EEC, 2 under which imports are permitted only from certain third countries specified on a list, provided that certain conditions laid down by the so-called administrative-committee procedure are satisfied. Thus it was provided (in a paragraph added to Article A — Facts 16 of Directive 72/462) essentially that glands, organs and blood could also be imported as raw materials for the pharma ceutical processing industry from third countries which do not appear in the abovementioned list. 1. The question at issue in these proceedings is whether Council Directive 87/64/EEC of 30 December 1986 amending Directive 72/461/EEC on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in fresh meat and Directive 72/462/EEC on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine animals and swine 4. Secondly, it was considered necessary to and fresh meat from third countries 1 was amend Directive 72/461 3 under which properly adopted on the basis of Articles certain conditions have to be satisfied with 100 and 113 of the EEC Treaty or whether regard to intra-Community trade (inter alia it should have been founded solely on that the meat must not have been obtained Article 43 of the EEC Treaty. from animals which come from a holding or area which, for health reasons, is subject to prohibition pursuant to the Council directive on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine as a result of certain 2. The directive was introduced because diseases). In that respect it was provided (in certain raw materials needed for pharma a paragraph added to Article 3 of that ceutical manufacturing purposes — namely directive) that by way of derogation from glands, organs and blood — are not Article 8a (under which the export of fresh available in the Community in sufficient pigmeat from Member States in which quantities. Its main objective is to facilitate African swine fever has been recorded the importation of such products from third within a specific period is in principle countries and it provides in addition — in prohibited) authorization may be given for the interests of maintaining Community the introduction of glands, organs and preference — for a certain liberalization of blood as raw materials for the pharma intra-Community trade in those products. ceutical processing industry.

* Original language: German. 2 — OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (31 December), p. 7. 1 — OJ L 34, 5.2.1987, p. 52. 3 — OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (31 December), p. 3.

COMMISSION v COUNCIL

5. The Commission based its proposal to market because they ensure free trade in that effect solely on Article 43 of the EEC conditions of fair competition. Accordingly, Treaty. Because Articles 100 and 113 of the it would normally follow that the same EEC Treaty were chosen as the legal basis would be true of the amending directive. for the amending directive (which, moreover, made changes to the content of the Commission's proposal), the Commission brought these proceedings with the aim of having the amending directive annulled on the ground that an inappro priate legal basis had been chosen. That aim 8. Secondly, it also considers that it is clear is supported by the Kingdom of the from the content itself of the contested Netherlands, whereas the Council's position directive that Article 43 of the Treaty is in the case has been defended by the United sufficient since the directive lays down rules Kingdom and the Kingdom of Denmark. concerning the products listed in Annex II to the Treaty and thus seeks to achieve objectives defined in Article 39 of the Treaty. The Commission relies in this respect principally on the judgment in Case B — Analysis 68/86 4concerning the so-called 'hormone directive'. In that judgment it was emphasized that Article 43 was the appro priate legal basis for any legislation concerning the production and marketing of 6. In my view the following observations agricultural products listed in Annex II may be made with regard to this dispute. to the Treaty which contributes to the achievement of one or more of the objectives of the common agricultural policy set out in Article 39 of the Treaty; it was also made clear that where legislation is directed both to objectives of agricultural 1. As we know — and for the details I policy and to other objectives which, in the would refer to the Report for the absence of specific provisions, are pursued Hearing — the Commission has, in fact, on the basis of Article 100 of the Treaty, two lines of argument. recourse to Article 43 is sufficient.

7. It considers that even the original directives, dating from 1972, (which were actually based on Articles 43 and 100 of the 9. I consider it preferable to deal with the EEC Treaty) should have been adopted on second line of argument first. That will the basis of Article 43 of the Treaty alone. clearly avoid a digression (namely the Essentially the directives concerned merely resolution of a dispute concerning the the establishment of common health amended directive which was not settled provisions in respect of meat imports with a when it first came up), and also save the view to stabilizing the market and assuring need to examine the problem of how far the availability of supplies and therefore measures that are important for the func 4 — Judgment of 23 February 1988 in Case 68/86 United tioning of a common organization of the Kingdom v Council and Commission [1988] ECR 855

OPINION OF MR LENZ —CASE C-131/87

there really is the 'parallelism of form' the products covered by the contested emphasized by the Commission. directive fell under Annex II to the EEC Treaty. It points out that in the Explanatory Notes to Chapter 2 of the Brussels Nomen clature (under 'General') it is stated that offals which are used solely in the prepa 10. In particular the question arises — in ration of pharmaceutical products fall under view of the abovementioned judgment and Heading 05.14 or Heading 30.01 (when the position in these proceedings — whether dried), that is to say, under headings which the products at issue are included without are not covered by Annex II. The Council exception in Annex II to the Treaty also considers the statement significant that (whereupon a subsidiary question may arise offals which can be used for human as to whether they must be the subject- consumption or for the preparation of phar matter of an organization of the market and maceutical products are to be classified whether that condition is met by the under Heading 05.14 (when provisionally products in this case). Secondly, there is preserved for the preparation of pharma also the question whether the contested ceutical products) or in Heading 30.01 legislation does actually (also) pursue agri (when dried). It further notes that in the cultural policy objectives within the meaning Explanatory Notes under paragraph (1) to of the judgment in Case 68/86. Heading 05.14 it is stated that the heading includes animal glands and other animal organs used in the preparation of organo- therapeutic products, which are unfit, by reason of their nature or the manner in 11. 2. As far as the first question is which they are put up, for human concerned (that is to say, whether the consumption and that subheading 30.01 A contested decision actually concerns only covers glands or other organs of animal products that are included in Annex II to origin of the kind used in medicine. It also the EEC Treaty), critical observations were observes that as regards blood (which as made by the United Kingdom in its inter such falls under Heading 05.15, and vention pleadings. Referring to the Expla therefore under a heading covered by natory Notes to the Tariff Nomenclature (it Annex II), it is clear from the description was, however, acknowledged at the hearing for Heading 30.01 that it falls under that that the 1986 version had mistakenly been heading if it is prepared for therapeutic or used rather than the earlier version which prophylactic uses. The only possible continued to apply to the unamended Annex inference is that the products in question II), the United Kingdom concluded that the here fall within the scope of Annex II only products to which the contested decision if they are suitable for human consumption refers do not for the most part, when which, however, will rarely be the case. imported as raw material for the pharma ceutical industry, fall under tariff headings listed in Annex II to the Treaty.

12. Subsequently the Council, in its rejoinder, expressed doubts as to whether all 13. The Commission began by stressing that 5 — Meaning that an amending legal measure should have the same legal basis as the original measure. when the contested directive was adopted

COMMISSION v COUNCIL

no such doubts were apparent or played any scribed — there can be no doubt that the part in the choice of legal basis. It attempted directive refers only to products which are to resolve the doubts expressed by pointing covered by Annex II (simply because glands out that what was really important as far as and organs fit for consumption clearly fall the Tariff Nomenclature was concerned in under Chapter 2 of the Customs Tariff and this connection was the differentiation as regards blood, it is plain that in edible between products which are suitable for form it falls under Heading 05.15). human consumption and those which are not, and thus end-use was not the first consideration. It referred on the one hand to the description of Heading 02.01 (which corresponds to the chapter heading) and to the Explanatory Notes to Chapter 2 ('General', first paragraph) and, on the other hand to Note 1(a) to Chapter 5 (according to which the chapter does not cover edible products), to the description of Heading 05.15 (products of animal origin unfit for human consumption) and to paragraph (1) of the Explanatory Notes to Heading 05.14 (which refers to animal glands and other animal organs unfit for human consumption). However, inasmuch as the Explanatory Notes also mention use for pharmaceutical purposes (as in the general comments on Chapter 2 in para graphs (2) and (3)), it should not be over looked that in the explanations following Category 3 it is made clear that the products in question fall in any case under Chapter 2 if they are suitable as such for 14. It must be pointed out at the outset that human consumption, and there is no doubt it is common ground in this dispute that the that Category 2 (concerning products which exact extent of the headings listed in Annex are used solely in the preparation of phar II is to be determined by reference to the maceutical products) covers only such Explanatory Notes to the Brussels Tariff products as can never be fit for human Nomenclature (as was noted in the consumption (which are therefore classified judgment in Case 61/80 6). It is also under Heading 05.14 — glands and other evidently not disputed that the scope of the animal organs unfit for human contested directive cannot simply be consumption — or under Heading determined by reference to its preamble (which speaks of the liberalization of the 30.01 — dried glands and other organs of importation of glands, organs and blood for animal origin of the kind used in medicine). the pharmaceutical industry) which would Moreover, since the contested directive mean that — according to the Explanatory provides for derogations from Directives Notes to the Customs Tariff, which mention 72/461/EEC and 72 / 462 / EEC and the one such end-use — headings are clearly latter directives, according to the express encompassed which are not listed in Annex definition given, are concerned only with II (namely Headings 05.15 and 30.01). meat fit for human consumption — from which it follows that the scope of the 6 — Judgment of 2b March 1981 in Case 61/80 Cooperatieve contested directive is also similarly circum Stremsel en Kleurselfabriek v Commission [1981] ECR 851

OPINION OF MR LENZ — CASE C-131/87

15. More important as far as the scope of to the Treaty is thus immaterial to the the contested directive is concerned is its decision in this case. connection with Directives 72/461 /EEC and 72/462/EEC and thus their field of 17. In actual fact this case hinges on the application which is determined by the proper interpretation of the definition of precise definition of fresh meat (of certain meat ('all parts which are fit for human animals) as including all parts of those consumption' of the listed animals) applying animals which are fit for human for the purposes of the amended directives, consumption and have not undergone any that is to say the question whether it follows preserving process except chilling or from that definition that the contested freezing (Article 1 of Directive 72/461; directive only encompasses meat that is Article 2 of Directive 72/462, which refers directly, in its actual state, fit for to the definitions given in Directives consumption (as the Commission appears to 64/432, 764/433 8and 72/461). assume) or whether (as the Council and the United Kingdom suggest) that interpretation is incorrect and the directive therefore encompasses all parts of the animal which, by reason of their nature, can be consumed even though in a specific case they might be in a state which excludes consumption. The answer to that question is irrelevant as regards the products also mentioned in this case which are referred to in the Ex planatory Notes to Chapter 2 'General', paragraph (2), since clearly here — according to the uncontradicted assertions of the Commission — are meant only offals, which by reason of their nature, are defi nitely not for human consumption. The answer is, however, significant as regards the products listed in the Explanatory Notes to Heading 05.14 (a heading not mentioned in Annex II), because it is relevant that this 16. Accordingly it is perfectly clear that the concerns glands and other animal organs contested directive does not relate to used in the preparation of organo-thera- products which are dealt with in the Expla peutic products which are unfit for human natory Notes to Chapter 2 of the Customs consumption by reason of their nature or of Tariff (under 'General' in paragraph (3)), the manner in which they are put up. If the at all events in so far as the products might Commission's view is followed, those fall under Heading 05.14 — by virtue products do not fall within the field of of provisional preservation — or under application of the contested directive Heading 30.01—by virtue of being (because it is enough in that respect that dried— and that it does not refer either to they are not fit for consumption in their the products mentioned in the Explanatory actual state), whereas they are covered by Notes as falling under subheadings 30.01 A the directive according to the position or 30.01 B which are also described as adopted by the Council and the United 'dried, powdered or preserved'. The fact Kingdom, because it is irrelevant that the that such products are not listed in Annex II way they are put up excludes their being consumed, if, by reason of their nature, they 7 — OJ, English Special Edition 1964, p. 164. could be. 8 — OJ, English Special Edition 1964, p. 185.

COMMISSION v COUNCIL

18. Let it be said right away that on this suggest that a contrast is intended between central issue (regarding the substantive field parts which are in principle fit for of application of the directive) the Council consumption and other parts which cannot and the United Kingdom seem to me to conceivably be consumed, which means that have the stronger case. the directive refers to parts which by reason of their nature can be consumed, including those which, because of their particular actual state, are no longer fit for consumption.

19. I am not, however, thinking of the distinction on which the United Kingdom laid emphasis between 'fit' and 'suitable' which in its view is important as far as the Customs Tariff is concerned and turns on whether a product (in the case of the first term) can be consumed having regard to its 21. Other arguments drawn by the Council actual state or whether (in the case of the and the United Kingdom from the scheme second term) it can be regarded as suitable of the directive also carry some weight. for consumption by reason of its nature. For Thus it is hardly reasonable to suppose that although it must be acknowledged that in Directive 72/462 (which refers to Directive the English version of the Explanatory 64/433) is applicable only to meat in an Notes to Chapter 2 in paragraph (a) both edible state when there are rules on the terms appear (the French version contains technical requirements to be satisfied before only the term 'impropre') and that the products are regarded as fit for human Explanatory Notes to Chapter 3 speak of consumption. 'fish, dead, unfit or unsuitable for human consumption by reason of either their species or their condition', on the other hand, in the Explanatory Notes to Heading 05.14 it is stated that the heading includes 'animal glands and other animal organs of a kind used in the preparation of organo- therapeutic products and unfit by reason of their nature or of the manner in which 22. Furthermore, Article 19(a) of Directive they are put up for human consumption', 72/462, which states that Articles 17 and 18 and that in the directive in question the are not to apply to meat imported for uses English version uses the term 'fit' rather other than human consumption, is note than 'suitable' in the definition of meat. worthy because it makes clear that other provisions of the directive do indeed apply to such meat. Also of some interest is the prohibition contained in Article 20(g) on the importation of offals (because it does not only apply in a limited form, as would be suggested by the interpretation of the defi 20. What does seem significant, however, is nition of meat favoured by the Commission) the argument based on the phrasing of the and the prohibition on the importation of definition in question ('"meat" means all blood (in Article 20(h)) which is not limited parts of [those animals] which are fit for to blood falling under Heading 05.15 but human consumption'). That would indeed also encompasses blood under Heading

OPINION OF MR LENZ —CASE C-131/87

30.01. It should finally be noted that in tenable (it is after all not excluded that the December 1988 the Commission itself contested directive may lead principally to adopted a decision based on Directive trade in glands and organs which because of 72/462 on the importation of fresh meat for their actual state cannot be used for human the manufacture of dog food (thus not for consumption) the only conclusion that may human consumption), which would not be drawn is that the argument put forward seem comprehensible if the directive in fact by the Commission regarding the legal basis covered only meat fit for human of the contested directive fails because a consumption. condition laid down in the case-law — that the provisions regulate agricultural products within the meaning of Annex II — is not satisfied.

23. Thus it must be held that the field of application of the contested directive (like that of the amended directives) extends to 25. 3. That suffices to establish that the meat that is in principle fit for consumption, Commission's claim that the directive should including therefore meat that because of its be annulled is unfounded. Accordingly there actual state is no longer fit for consumption. is no need to go into the further issues that At the same time it follows that it also have been raised such as: whether covers glands and organs which, according application of Article 43 of the Treaty is to the Explanatory Notes to the Customs conditional on the products included falling Tariff, fall under Heading 05.14 (when they under a common organization of the are used in the preparation of organo- market; the pursuit in the present case of therapeutic products and are unfit for objectives of the agricultural policy under human consumption by reason of the man Article 39; the significance in that ner in which they are put up), that is to say connection of Article 113 of the Treaty; and under a heading not mentioned in Annex II whether in any case annulment of the to the Treaty. directive is ruled out because the Parliament (which must be consulted under Article 43) was consulted under Article 100 and as far as the Council was concerned unanimity was required in accordance with Article 149 of the Treaty (because the Commission's proposal was amended).

24. If, however, the products concerned are not just agricultural products listed in Annex II, it would surely not be conceivable to adopt a measure such as the contested directive solely in reliance on rules from the agricultural sector, in particular Article 43. 26. 4. However, I shall make some further Since, in my view, the Commission's observations in case the Court does not attitude that it is the main objective of the share the view I have set out above (for the directive that is determinant and not certain purpose of these observations it is to be products which are to be regarded as more assumed that the contested directive relates or less mere appendages does not seem only to products listed in Annex II).

COMMISSION v COUNCIL

27. (a) As far as the first question is That is shown by Article 43, which does not concerned, the Council has pointed out that merely refer to the common agricultural offal for the preparation of pharmaceutical policy as 'including' forms of common products is expressly excluded from the organization but speaks generally in this common organizations of the markets in the connection of implementing the measures sectors of beef and veal, pigmeat and specified in Title II. It is also borne out by poultry (see Regulations Nos 3905/87, Article 40, according to which various forms 3906/87 and 3907/87 9) and it has of organization, that is to say not only accordingly expressed the view that in this organizations of the markets, may be used respect, because there was no common in the common agricultural policy and in organization of the market to ensure free which mention is made of all the measures trade, the general rules must be applicable. required to attain the objectives set out in In a somewhat less emphatic form the Article 39. Kingdom of Denmark stated in this connection that the fact that the products in question did not fall under a common organization of the market supported the presumption that Article 43 could not serve as the legal basis.

30. Above all it is significant that the products in question (if we are assuming that they are included in Annex II) are indeed the subject of a common organ ization of the market, namely that estab 28. It seems to me — and here I would lished by Regulation No 827/68 'in certain 10 follow the Commission — that both those products listed in Annex II to the Treaty'. parties are working on a false premiss, or at This is shown by the annex to that regu least one for which no support is to be lation in its original version and in the found in the case-law. It is clear from the version of Regulation No 1014/73 which wording of paragraph 12 of the judgment in mentions subheading 02.01 B 1 and Case 68/86 that objectives of the common Headings 05.04 and 05.15, and is also agricultural policy may be pursued not shown by the new version of the annex after merely in the framework of the common its adaptation to the 1988 Nomenclature by organizations of the markets and it is Regulation No 3911/87. 11 particularly noteworthy that the remarks made in respect of Article 43 in paragraphs 11 and 14 do not provide any basis for a restrictive application of that provision in the rules on the marketing of agricultural products.

31. (b) As regards the further question of the pursuit of the objectives of the agri cultural policy set out in Article 39, the Commission does indeed mention such a purpose by referring to the intention of 29. But it is also plain that the Council's assuring the availability of supplies to the position cannot be derived from the Treaty. 10 — OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (1), p 209 9 — OJ L 370, 30.12.1987, p. 7 et seq. 11 — OJ L 370, 30.12.1987, p. 36.

OPINION OF MR LENZ —CASE C-131/87

pharmaceutical industry (Article 39(1)(d)) 33. In this regard the Kingdom of the and ensuring that supplies reach consumers Netherlands made the fundamental point, at reasonable prices (Article 39(1)(e)) which with which I concur, that provisions on the could not be guaranteed because of insuf agricultural policy were to be broadly ficient Community production. construed because they were part of the 'foundations of the Community'. If that view is taken, then it cannot follow merely from the wording of Article 39 that assuring the availability of supplies is to be restricted to providing humans and animals with food, since that wording can readily cover everything relating to the supply of agri cultural products within the meaning of Annex II. There is also no apparent reason why 'consumer' should be understood only in the narrow sense of certain specialized rules to which the Council referred, for of 32. The Council, on the other hand, course there is an interest in ensuring contended in its pleadings essentially that reasonable prices for everyone who assuring the availability of supplies to the participates in the demand for agricultural pharmaceutical industry was not the products, including industrial consumers. ultimate objective of the directive, but only a means to ensure the protection of health through adequate production of pharma ceutical preparations (that is to say, the attainment of an objective that is not included in Article 39); at the hearing the Council also emphasized that when rules were laid down on supplies for the pharma ceutical industry, it was necessary to ensure that public health was adequately protected (in which respect Article 100 of the Treaty was relevant) and it also expressed doubts whether, taking into account the lexical 34. Similarly, I remain unconvinced by the meaning and significance of the term in United Kingdom's view that the aim of other Community measures, industrial assuring the availability of supplies can only undertakings could be regarded as be pursued by production measures within consumers within the meaning of Article 39. the Community. In so far as support for that The Commission's point of view was also view is drawn from the judgment in Joined 12 challenged by the Kingdom of Denmark, Cases 56 and 60/74 (where it was sought which argued that, properly construed, to establish the non-contractual liability of Article 39(1)(e) did not envisage supplies to the Community in connection with the industry but only the availability of food to production of durum wheat), it may be humans and animals. The United Kingdom's countered that from the circumstance that attitude is similar, that is to say that the in this connection mention was made of phrase 'to assure the availability of supplies' assuring the availability of supplies through means measures to improve and maintain the promotion of intra-Community Community production in line with production, it certainly does not follow that demand, not liberalization of imports in the those are the only possible measures as far interest of industry in areas where Community production is inadequate. 12 — Judgment of 2 June 1976 in Joined Cases 56 and 60/74 Kampffmeyer vCommission and Council [1976] ECR 711.

COMMISSION v COUNCIL

as Article 39(1)(d) is concerned. Indicative 37. (c) Furthermore, the Commission is in that respect is that Article 40(3) includes, right that recourse to Article 113 of the among the measures required pursuant to EEC Treaty, which the Council and the Article 39, machinery for stabilizing imports Member States supporting it consider or exports. necessary on the ground that the achievement of uniformity with regard to liberalization of imports from third countries is a measure of commercial policy, was not required.

35. Furthermore it is quite plain from its 38. One reason is that import problems had preamble that the contested measure's already been dealt with in Chapters II and primary objective is to assure adequate III of the amended Directive 72/462 and supplies of raw materials for the pharma that neither it nor the many measures ceutical industry, whereas it does not appear amending it were based on Article 113. That that the ultimate main purpose is to ensure would suggest that it is appropriate to the protection of public health by adequate uphold the same approach in respect of the supplies of medicinal products. The avail contested directive, which envisages nothing ability of those supplies could — after more than a provisional limitation on the all — be assured by other means. field of application of the amended directive.

39. Moreover, common organizations of the markets (such as in cereals, milk, beef and veal) often contain provisions 36. Accordingly, I see little difficulty in concerning trade with third countries (and regarding the measures adopted in Directive therefore take account of the principles of 87/64 as measures to stabilize the market, Article 110) but they do so solely on the assure the availability of supplies and ensure basis of Article 43 (which should once again that supplies reach consumers at reasonable bring to mind Article 40(3) — machinery for prices. Consequently the Commission is stabilizing imports or exports). correct in thinking that the directive does indeed pursue agricultural policy objectives and that — in view of the observations made in this connection in Case 68/86 — Article 43 is a sufficient legal basis and recourse to Article 100 was not necessary, even though 'requirements . . . 40. Furthermore reference may again be such as the protection of the health and life made to the judgment in Case 68/86 in of humans and animals . . . must be taken which the measures at issue concerned inter into account' (paragraph 12 of the alia the import of live animals and meat into abovementioned judgment). the Community (paragraph 19) and the fact

OPINION OF MR LENZ — CASE C-131/87

that the directive was adopted solely on the under Article 43, which is not prescribed basis of Article 43 was approved. under Article 113) is concerned. Partici pation of the Parliament is provided for in Article 100, the article in fact used, and it was not alleged that consultation with the Parliament was not comprehensive but limited to that part of the directive which 41. In contrast, the reference by the deals with intra-Community trade and its Council to a range of measures of harmonization. commercial policy based on Article 113 of the Treaty cannot be conclusive since the Commission has pointed out that they were concerned with international agreements and their implementation, while this case is concerned with an autonomous Community measure. 45. The position is not the same, however, as regards the different requirements for the adoption of the directive (qualified majority under Article 43; unanimity under Article 42. (d) On the premiss that the contested 100). In this connection it is difficult to directive was concerned solely with agri accept the mere statement that the content cultural products within the meaning of of the directive (to which the Commission Annex II, it would have to be acknowledged itself does not object) had to be adopted that the Commission was correct in its unanimously in any event because the assertion that the directive was adopted Council had not followed the Commission's improperly because it took as its basis proposal (Article 149 of the EEC Treaty). It Articles 100 and 113 of the EEC Treaty cannot be excluded that if Article 43 had instead of Article 43. been taken as the legal basis from the outset, another result would have ensued; that is to say, quite possibly the Commission's proposal was amended only because the Council in any case assumed that unanimity was necessary, whereas, 43. Consideration would then have to be applying Article 43 and with a qualified given to the further question whether that majority, a differently formulated measure would actually justify annulment of the might have emerged. directive, because it must be assumed that the choice of legal basis could have an effect on the content of the measures (as stated in 13 the judgment in Case 45/86 ).

46. I would therefore consider that it would not be enough to hold that the directive was 44. It would seem that that was not the case adopted on an inappropriate legal basis but here as far as the participation of the that the measure would have to be declared Parliament (in the form of consultation void, as submitted by the Commission (if the assumption were correct that it related 13 — Judgment of 26 March in Case 45/86 Commission v Council [1987] ECR 1493. solely to agricultural products).

COMMISSION v COUNCIL

C — Conclusion

47. In view of my primary conclusion, I must of course propose that the Court dismiss the Commission's application as unfounded. The Commission should also be ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those of the United Kingdom, but not those of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which failed in its submissions, nor those of the Kingdom of Denmark, which did not ask for costs.