Welcome

Bela-Mühle (Case C-124/76) [1977] ECR 175

ResourcesBela-Mühle (Case C-124/76) [1977] ECR 175

Facts

  • Bela-Mühle, a German compound-feed producer, incorporated subsidised skimmed-milk powder as a protein source in animal feed.
  • Regulation (EEC) No 1725/79 compelled manufacturers to mix a specified quantity of fish oil into the powder, rendering it unfit for human consumption and deterring fraudulent diversion to the food chain.
  • Bela-Mühle asserted that the fish-oil additive caused rancidity, reduced livestock acceptance, generated waste, and increased production costs.
  • The firm argued that laboratory testing and administrative controls already prevented diversion, making the additive unnecessary.
  • In reimbursement proceedings, a German administrative court referred questions to the European Court of Justice on the regulation’s compatibility with the EU principle of proportionality.
  • The reference required clarification of how far Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) measures, despite broad legislative discretion, remain subject to proportionality review.

Issues

  1. Whether mandatory fish-oil denaturing was suitable to achieve the anti-fraud objective of preventing human re-consumption.
  2. If suitable, whether equally effective but less restrictive alternatives existed, rendering the measure unnecessary.
  3. Whether the economic burden imposed on feed manufacturers outweighed the public benefit, thereby failing the fair-balance limb of proportionality.

Decision

  • CAP regulations are reviewable under general EU principles, including proportionality.
  • The Court formulated a three-stage proportionality test: (i) suitability (rational connection to the aim); (ii) necessity (absence of equally effective, less onerous means); and (iii) fair balance (benefits outweigh disadvantages).
  • The fish-oil requirement was capable of deterring diversion, satisfying suitability.
  • Although colourants or post-production controls were mentioned, strict necessity had not been disproved given the legislature’s wide discretion.
  • The economic disadvantages did not exceed the public interest in fraud prevention; the measure therefore met the fair-balance limb.
  • Accordingly, the regulation remained valid, but the judgment clarified the evidential burden EU institutions bear when proportionality is challenged.
  • Proportionality applies to all EU legislative acts, including those adopted under the CAP.
  • Judicial review proceeds sequentially: legitimate aim, suitability, necessity, and fair balance (proportionality stricto sensu).
  • Even where institutional discretion is broad, EU bodies must demonstrate compliance with each limb when a measure is contested.

Conclusion

The Court upheld the fish-oil denaturing requirement and crystallised a structured three-limb proportionality test, signalling that future CAP measures imposing economic costs must be demonstrably suitable, strictly necessary, and proportionately balanced against their disadvantages.

Assistant

Responses can be incorrect. Please double check.