A 1985 Council directive prescribes measures to combat foot-and-mouth disease. Since 1990, it has laid down the principle of a ban on vaccination, allowing emergency vaccination only in certain geographical zones.¹ A decision to introduce emergency vaccination is taken by the Commission in collaboration with the Member State concerned.

Ms Jippes, who resides at Yde (Netherlands), lives outside the vaccination zones established by a Commission decision of 27 March 2001, which lays down, pursuant to the Community directive, the conditions for the control and eradication of foot-and-mouth disease in theNetherlands.² Ms Jippes requested the Netherlands Minister of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries to grant an exemption from the ban on vaccination. Having received no response, she submitted a complaint and applied to the President of the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and Industry) for leave to vaccinate her animals.

Ms Jippes pleaded the existence of a general principle of Community law relating to animal welfare.

The Minister took the view that Ms Jippes was not entitled to arrange for her animals to be given the same treatment as that reserved for animals kept in zoos, which may in certain circumstances qualify for vaccination.

The national court requested the Court of Justice to rule on the compatibility with Community law (in particular, the principle of proportionality) of the vaccination ban imposed by the directive, and on the validity of the way in which it has been applied by the Commission in its decision concerning the Netherlands.

The Court of Justice points out that it has previously held that the interests of the Community include the health and protection of animals; the protocol added to the Treaty of Amsterdam, relating to the welfare of animals, reinforces the obligation to take those matters into consideration. The Court ensures compliance with that obligation in the context of its review of the principle of proportionality.

The non-vaccination policy was adopted following a study by the Commission, which decided, after weighing the costs against the advantages offered by the various options, in favour of such a policy; that conclusion was endorsed by the Council. In the light of the various arguments put forward, the Court considers that the prohibition of preventive vaccination, which does not enable the disease to be eradicated, does not go beyond what is appropriate and necessary in order to attain the objective pursued, namely the protection of livestock in the Community.

Even in the absence of any outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, it is impossible to guarantee that the virus is not present in vaccinated animals. Moreover, the cost and disadvantages, in terms of control, of preventive vaccination of all animals in the Community would greatly outweigh those of a non-vaccination policy. It is also necessary to have regard to the negative effect which a vaccination policy would have on exports of animals to third countries. Lastly, the Court observes that it has not been established that the introduction of a vaccination policy would have reduced the need to have recourse to sanitary slaughter.

The directive was aimed at safeguarding the health of livestock. It was not therefore inconsistent with the protection of animals. Moreover, the Council was obliged to have regard to the general interest, by pursuing the objective of safeguarding the health of all livestock in the Community rather than that of certain individual animals which could be vaccinated, selective emergency vaccination adapted to the requirements of a particular situation being obtainable.

The decision specifying the extent of the protective vaccination zone in the Netherlands was likewise adopted in accordance with the principle of proportionality. The Court of Justice considers that if anyone so requesting were to be granted authorisation to vaccinate animals belonging to him and kept outside that zone, that would very possibly diminish the ability to monitor development of the disease, thus increasing the risk of contamination.

In its analysis of the allegedly discriminatory nature of the Commission's decision, the Court observes that the situation of Ms Jippes' domestic animals is not comparable, in particular, with that of species threatened with extinction which are kept in zoos and which may qualify for emergency vaccination pursuant to the decision defining the vaccination zones in the Netherlands.

Accelerated procedure applied for the first time in the context of a reference for a preliminary ruling

Pursuant to the amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice which entered into force on 1 July 2000, the President may decide, on a recommendation by the Judge- Rapporteur and after hearing the Advocate General, to apply an accelerated procedure to a reference for a preliminary ruling (Article 104a of the Rules of Procedure).

In order for leave to be granted for the application of an accelerated procedure, two conditions must be fulfilled:

(1)    the accelerated procedure must be requested by the national court;
(2)    the circumstances referred to must establish that a ruling on the question put to the Court is required as a matter of exceptional urgency.

In the present case, the President has decided for the first time that the questions referred should be determined by way of an accelerated procedure.

Unofficial document for media use only; not binding on the Court of Justice. Available in Dutch, English, French, German and Spanish. For the full text of the judgment, please consult our Internet page www.curia.eu.int  at approximately 15.00 hrs today. For further information please contact Fionnuala Connolly: Tel: (00 352) 4303 3355; Fax: (00 352) 4303 2731

1    Council Directive 85/511/EEC of 18 November 1985 (OJ 1985 L 315, p. 11), as amended by Council Directive 90/423/EEC of 26 June 1990 (OJ 1990 L 224, p. 13).2    Commission Decision 2001/246/EC of 27 March 2001 (OJ 2001 L 88, p. 21).