Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mancini

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. By judgment of 16 April 1985 the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven [Administrative court of last instance in matters of trade and industry] asked the Court to interpret certain provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2772/75 of 29 October 1975 on marketing standards for eggs (Official Journal 1975, L 282, p. 56).

2. In the proceedings before the Court, written observations were submitted by the Commission of the European Communities and the Netherlands Government. According to the latter, the contested Order was adopted under pressure from animal protectionists and consumer associations for the adoption of measures designed to combat industrial systems of rearing chickens in batteries. There is no doubt that the easiest solution would have been to prohibit such systems outright. Instead, the Netherlands legislature preferred to establish and introduce into commercial usage the expression scharreleieren, adopting a more indirect, though, in its view, equally effective, approach. That trade description, which may be used only by undertakings equipped with facilities capable of ensuring specific living conditions for poultry, was designed to guarantee the wellbeing of hens, to lay down a minimum number of restrictions on the production and marketing of eggs and to benefit consumers by providing them with specific information on the origin of the product.

3. I cannot endorse that argument. To begin with, I would recall that, according to Article 2 (2) of Regulation No 2771/75 on the common organization of the market in eggs, the Council had undertaken to adopt marketing standards for eggs, relating to grading by quality and weight, packaging, storage, transport, presentation and marking. The Council's intention was that those standards should contribute to an improvement in the quality of the eggs and consequently facilitate their sale in the interest of producers, traders and consumers.

4. In the light of all the foregoing considerations, I propose that the answer to the question submitted by judgment of 16 April 1985 of the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven in the action brought by Wulro challenging the fine imposed upon it by the Disciplinary Board of the Stichting Scharreleieren-Controle, should be as follows:

1 Translated from the Italian.