Luxembourg, 18/07/2001 (Agence Europe) - The Court of Justice has ruled that the European policy on combating the foot-and-mouth disease, which has remained constant since 1990, is not contrary to the "principle of proportionality". It adds that animal welfare is not a general principle of the law that could bring into question the policy of sanitary slaughter, considered by the EU as preferable to a policy of preventive vaccination. Such is the Court's answer to a court in the Hague which is to rule on the refusal by the Netherlands Minister of Agriculture to authorise a request by Ms Jippes to vaccinate her four pet sheep and two pet goats, which, she feared, might catch the foot-and-mouth disease during the spring outbreak. The Dutch judge asked the Court of Justice whether the current EU policy was, or not, compatible with European law.
The European judges insist that, in this case, it was not a question of knowing whether the slaughter policy adopted by the EU was the "only or the best" policy but only whether it was proportionate to the aim of combating the epizootic. Ms Jippes felt it was disproportionate as the aim of fighting foot-and-mouth could be achieved through less radical means, i.e. preventive vaccination. The Court did not accept this argument. It did, however, take on board nearly all the arguments put forward by the Member States present at the hearing in June (see EUROPE of 2/3 July, p.15) - speedy proceedings that only lasted two and a half months, with the case arriving at the Court of Justice on 26 April.
EU policy complies with "principle of proportionality"
The Council and the Commission have considerable power of assessment in agricultural policy. They correctly assessed the advantages and the disadvantages of the slaughter policy when the Council stated its preference for this policy, in its 1990 Directive, compared to a vaccination policy, note the judges. The slaughter policy was in accordance with the recommendations of the International Organisation on Epizooties (IOE) and is practised by many countries throughout the world. It pursued the objective of safeguarding the health of livestock since its objective was to improve the state of health of all livestock by protecting animals from a particularly dreaded disease.
The Court recalls the disadvantages of preventive vaccination that were stressed at the hearing by all those represented - Council, Commission, Member States - namely: - a vaccination policy does not eradicate a disease as the animals vaccinated may continue to carry the virus and contaminate healthy animals; - its costs and disadvantages may outweigh those for slaughter, given the number of animals to be vaccinated, the many different kinds of virus and the frequency of boosters required; - no account was taken of the economic impact of a vaccination policy that would have closed the borders of many third countries to European exports. The Court stresses that banning preventive vaccination did not prevent some cases of emergency vaccination (rare species in zoos or, in the Netherlands, animals awaiting slaughter).
The European judges state their regret that pets belonging to Ms Jippes could not be vaccinated during the height of the outbreak (Ed.: these animals are still alive and in good health) but European policy to fight this disease should not be brought into question because of the situation of one person or just one group of people, they explain. The Court also states it has, on several occasions, noted the Council's regard to general interest pursuing the objective of safeguarding the health and protection of all livestock, including in this case, where the slaughter policy allows other animals to be protected against foot-and-mouth.
Accelerated procedure and "selective emergency"
The Court used its so-called accelerated procedure which allowed it to establish a ruling in just two months and a half instead of the twenty-one years needed on average to reach a ruling in cases subject to normal procedure. One of the conditions to be fulfilled for the application of an accelerated procedure to be granted is the existence of "exceptional urgency". At the hearing, Denmark said it was "stupefied" to see that this matter of public concern, albeit concerning only four sheep and two goats - a matter of foreseeable outcome for well-informed observers - had been chosen to initiate this new procedure. The other condition for granting application is that the national court should request accelerated procedure of the Court of Justice, which, say experts, could henceforth be the case for a large number of proceedings as national courts are complaining of the time the Court of Justice takes to answer their questions on how to interpret European law. The Jippes affair will remain the first of its kind; and some lawyers are already asking what criteria the Court will use in future for choosing cases to be granted accelerated procedure.