CJEU Joined Cases C-364/24 and C‑393/24 / Opinion

85. The referring court in Case C‑393/24 asks whether there is a form of discrimination between the citizens/farmers of the different Member States as a result of the different choices made by the Member States when adjusting the geographical scope, in breach of Article 18 TFEU and Article 21 of the Charter.

...

89. With regard, more specifically, to the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, while Article 21(2) of the Charter sets out that principle, Article 52(2) thereof provides that rights recognised by the Charter for which provision is made in the Treaties are to be exercised under the conditions and within the limits defined by those Treaties. In that vein, Article 21(2) corresponds to the first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU, as confirmed by the Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (37) relating to that provision, and must be applied in accordance with that article. (38)

...

93. As regards the discrimination between agricultural producers, I should point out that the principle of non-discrimination set out in Article 18 TFEU and Article 21 of the Charter requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently and that different situations must not be treated in the same way unless such treatment is objectively justified. (42)

...

96. In those circumstances, I take the view that an examination of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling has revealed nothing capable of affecting the validity of the provision at issue in the light of Article 18 TFEU and Article 21 of the Charter.

97.  In its first question, the referring court in Case C‑364/24 invokes Articles 16 and 52 of the Charter, without however putting forward any argument relating to the validity of the provision at issue in the light of those articles. Furthermore, the referring court in Case C‑393/24 simply finds that the general principles of EU law relating to the freedom to conduct a business, set out in Articles 16 and 52 of the Charter, can be used as criteria for assessment of the validity of the provision at issue.

98. As for the applicant in the main proceedings, he claims that the prohibition on the cultivation of GMOs constitutes an infringement of Articles 16 and 52 of the Charter in so far as it affects the freedom to conduct a business of farmers who wish to cultivate genetically modified plants. Such farmers cannot offer to consumers goods offered by organic producers active on territories where the cultivation of GMOs is not prohibited.

99.  Under Article 16 of the Charter, the freedom to conduct a business in accordance with EU law and national laws and practices is recognised. As is apparent from the explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, (44) the right guaranteed in that provision ‘is[, of course,] to be exercised with respect for Union law and national legislation. It may be subject to the limitations provided for in Article 52(1) of the Charter’.

...

101. That circumstance is reflected, inter alia, in the way in which Article 52(1) of the Charter requires the principle of proportionality to be implemented. (47)

102. In accordance with that provision, any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by the Charter must be provided for by law, respect the essence of those rights and freedoms and, subject to the principle of proportionality, be necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the European Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.

...

104. In those circumstances, I consider that an examination of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling has revealed nothing capable of affecting the validity of the provision at issue in the light of Articles 16 and 52 of the Charter.