Opinion due in UK beef ban case

Date: 25/09/1997

By Michael Mann

THE legal battle over the ban on British beef exports, which has been overshadowed by the UK's political efforts to get it lifted, will move centre stage again next week.

European Court of Justice Advocate-General Giuseppe Tesauro will deliver his opinion next Tuesday (30 September) on whether the European Commission acted unlawfully in banning all exports of British beef last March.

This crucial stage in the court case comes less than two weeks after EU veterinary inspectors gave their blessing to the first easing of the ban.

Although the case brought by the National Farmers Union (NFU) and a group of beef processors and shippers is formally against the UK legislation which implemented the ban, the British government fully supports the challenge.

However, following the failure of their attempts to gain an injunction against the ban last July, few believe the British stand much chance of winning the full case.

The crux of their argument is that the Commission lacked the power to impose the ban and that, even if the measure was legal, it was not proportional to the threat posed to human health by BSE.

The NFU points out that the Commission admitted the export prohibition was not introduced as a public health measure, which might have justified it, but rather “because of serious concern among consumers”. It also argues that existing laws on BSE did not authorise the Commission to ban exports to non-EU countries, nor to stop overseas sales of beef-related products.

In evidence supporting the Commission, the Council of Ministers refuted any suggestion that the EU executive overreached its powers in imposing the ban.

The basis of the Commission's defence is that it took its decision because of the potential seriousness of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (the human equivalent of BSE). It claims that it was no longer possible to give the UK the “benefit of the doubt” in the light of the most recent evidence of the probable transmissibility of BSE to humans, and argues that the decision should be viewed in the light of circumstances at the time and not based on “retrospective considerations”.

A final ruling is expected late this year or early in 1998.