## Facts

- The Council adopted Directive 88/146/EEC, largely prohibiting administration of specified hormonal substances to farm animals intended for meat production, subject to limited therapeutic and zootechnical exceptions.
- The measure followed earlier, less restrictive EU rules and was adopted amid divergent Member State regulatory approaches and disagreements about health risks from hormone-treated meat.
- UK authorities implemented the Directive through domestic regulations.
- Industry associations and companies involved in animal health and livestock production challenged the UK measures, arguing the underlying Directive was invalid under general principles of EU law.
- The High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) referred questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the Directive’s validity.

## Issues

1. Whether the Directive lacked a proper legal basis under the CAP provision (then Article 43 EEC) or constituted misuse of powers because it pursued public health or internal-market aims.
2. Whether the prohibition violated legal certainty or legitimate expectations, given disputed scientific assessments.
3. Whether the prohibition was disproportionate to the objectives pursued.
4. Whether the Directive breached equal treatment because it had different economic effects across Member States based on prior national rules.
5. Whether reliance on preparatory materials connected to an earlier annulled measure tainted the Directive’s validity.
6. Whether the compliance deadline (expiring before adoption) produced unlawful retroactive effects, particularly regarding penalties.

## Decision

- The Court of Justice upheld the validity of Directive 88/146/EEC in full.
- Article 43 EEC was a proper legal basis; the Directive’s objectives were sufficiently linked to the CAP, and no misuse of powers was shown.
- No breach of legal certainty or legitimate expectations was established.
- The measure was not manifestly inappropriate in light of the objectives; proportionality was satisfied.
- Uniform application across Member States defeated the discrimination claim, even if impacts differed due to prior national regimes.
- Use of preparatory materials was permissible where the materials were not themselves affected by the procedural defect that led to annulment of the earlier act.
- Any retroactive administrative effect could be acceptable if justified and consistent with legitimate expectations, but retroactive criminal penalties were impermissible.

## Legal Principles

- In fields involving complex technical assessments and CAP policy choices, legislative institutions enjoy broad discretion; judicial review is limited to whether a measure is manifestly inappropriate to its objective.
- Proportionality requires that a restriction be appropriate and necessary for legitimate objectives; where multiple appropriate measures exist, the least onerous should be chosen; burdens must not be disproportionate to the aims pursued.
- Legal certainty and legitimate expectations are not violated merely because scientific opinion is divided, where institutions act within their discretion to address divergent national assessments and market conditions.
- Equal treatment is not breached by a harmonizing measure that applies uniformly to all Member States, even if its economic effects vary due to pre-existing national law.
- A CAP measure may pursue ancillary aims (including health protection and consumer confidence) without losing its CAP legal basis, so long as it essentially concerns agricultural market organization and competition conditions.
- Retroactive effect may be допустible in limited circumstances where justified and consistent with legitimate expectations, but the principle against retroactive penal provisions must be respected.

## Conclusion

The Court sustained the EU-wide hormone-use prohibition for livestock, confirming that CAP legislation may incorporate health-related aims, that proportionality review of such measures is highly deferential absent manifest inappropriateness, that uniform harmonization is not discriminatory because of differing national starting points, and that any retroactive operation cannot support retroactive criminal punishment.


R (Fedesa) v. Minister of Agric., Fisheries & Food, Case C-331/88, [1990] E.C.R. I-4023 (C.J.E.U. 1990)