C-52/77

3. It is not for the Court of Justice to or penal measure which goes beyond assess whether questions referred to it what is strictly necessary for the

by a national court under Article 177 purposes of enabling the importing of the Treaty are relevant to the nature Member State to obtain reasonably and subject-matter of the action complete and accurate information on before that court, since in accordance the movement of goods falling within with the structure of the procedure for specific measures of commercial

a preliminary ruling such assessment policy must be regarded as a measure

comes within the jurisdiction of the having an effect equivalent to a

national court. quantitative restriction prohibited by 4. The requirement by the importing the Treaty. Member State of the indication of the 5. The rules relating to control of the

country of origin on the customs of products cannot of quality declaration document for products in themselves justify a requirement to

be discrimi­ with regard to origin, something other appropriate, regarded as

than what he knows or may natory and thereby incompatible with

reasonably be expected to know or if the Treaty, in particular Article 30.

In Case 52/77,

Reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Tribunale of Saluzzo for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that

court between

the Council of 20. 7. 1970, OJ, English Special Edition Second Series, I. External Relations (1), p. 269) and of Articles 30 and 115 of the EEC Treaty,

THE COURT

composed of: H. Kutscher, President, M. Sørensen and G. Bosco, Presidents of Chambers, A. M. Donner, P. Pescatore, J. Mertens de Wilmars, Lord

Mackenzie Stuart, A. O'Keeffe and A. Touffait, Judges,

Advocate-General: J.-P. Warner Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

from Italy (where the grapes had been them jointly inter alia to pay a fine of

put into free circulation) by the firm FF 532 435 in lieu of confiscation of the

Giovanni Rivoira & Figli. The grapes goods seized and a fine amounting to

bore the Italian export mark and were four times the value of the goods liable accompanied by the certificate of the to confiscation, namely FF 1 064 870. Istituto Nazionale per il Commercio The Tribunal rejected in particular the

Estero (ICE) certifying that the goods argument put forward by Mr Cayrol that were in conformity with the quality the grapes had acquired Italian origin by

standards and stating that they were of reason of the processes performed in Italian origin. Italy, under Article 5 of Regulation

to the Tribunale di Saluzzo for a warrant the basis of bilateral commercial

for attachment against the assets of agreements previously concluded with

Rivoira with a view to the compensation Spain) quantitative restrictions of

to which he considers himself entitled — whatever nature, including import

up to an adequate part of the sum paid quotas, with regard to products

by him under the settlement with the originating in Spain (and in particular

Rivoira contested the claim for a warrant certificates of origin or other means of

for attachment, arguing inter alia that identifying the origin of the products

the agreement concluded between the referred to above constitute a measure

European Economic Community and having an effect equivalent to a

Spain prohibited France from laying quantitative restriction, prohibited by down import quotas for Spanish table Article 30 of the Treaty? grapes. 4. It the reply to the question above is in

the affirmative: May the Member

pursuant to a commercial agreement of the district of production or

concluded by the EEC with the said definition of the product as 'table third country? grapes'), which impose obligations

2. Must Article 1 of Annex I to the solely for the protection of the final Agreement between the European consumer, compliance with which can Economic Community and Spain be established only at the relevant

referred to in Regulation (EEC) No marketing stage, constitute customs

CAYROL v RIVOIRA

measures, that is, measures permitting 'Imports into the Community of

laid down in the abovementioned

Regulation No 58/62, does the fact 'Imports into the Community of the

that a Member State applies to following products originating in Spain imported products the penalties shall be subject to the duties in the prescribed for the infringement of Common Customs Tariff reduced by the customs law and to domestic products percentages shown below: the penalties (which are, moreover,

lighter) prescribed for the infringe­ 08.04 Grapes, fresh or dried: ment of commercial rules, constitute a A. Fresh: measure having equivalent effect ex (a) From 1 November to 14

prohibited by Article 30? July: — From 1 January to 31 The order making the reference was March 50 % lodged at the Court Registry on 19 April 1977. Rivoira submits that, under the

combined provisions of the two rules Pursuant to Article 20 of the Protocol on no quantitative restriction the Statute of the Court of Justice of quoted, may be applied at any time of the year to the EEC, written observations were imports of table grapes from Spain into submitted by Rivoira, represented by the Community. Giovanni Maria Ubertazzi and Fausto Capelli of the Milan Bar, and by the Com­ Article 1 of Annex I lays down the Commission of the European principle of the prohibition of munities, represented by its Legal quantitative restrictions in general and Adviser, Giuliano Marenco, acting as absolute terms for a whole range of Agent. products which are determined by After hearing the report of the reference to other articles and other parts

Summary of the written application of the reduction applicable to observations submitted to the product. the Court

Rivoira considers that there is no real Rivoira examines first of all the doubt as to the interpretation of the problems raised by the second question

provisions at issue. The argument which referred for a preliminary ruling, which, it puts forward above — based on literal in its submission, are fundamental. interpretation — is moreover confirmed

Article 1 of Annex I to the Agreement by the rule as to effectiveness. Indeed, it between the European Economic Com­ is and stated in clearly explicitly munity and Spain provides: paragraph 4 of the preamble to the

JUDGMENT OF 30. 11. 1977 - CASE 52/77

'anxious'

provisions will allow. table grapes from Spain can also be shown by drawing a comparison with the Furthermore, the interpretation proposed system instituted by Regulation (EEC) is in accordance with the place which No 2513/69 of the Council of 9 Article 1 of Annex A I occupies in the December 1969 on the coordination and

general scheme of the Agreement. That standardization of the treatment accorded

article enacts a fundamental principle, by each Member State to imports of fruit and it is therefore impossible to interpret and vegetables from third countries (JO it restrictively. In particular, it does not L 318, p. 6). Article 1 of that regulation

allow of an interpretation restricting the — which provides for the abolition of all

abolition of quantitative restrictions for quantitative restrictions on imports from table grapes imported during the period third countries of the products concerned

from 1 January to 31 March each year. — makes an exception as regards table

dismantling of customs barriers. It is not even those least connected to the

confined to the reduction or the Community by economic interests. abolition of duties; it also covers the Moreover, Regulation No 2513/69 immediate abolition of quantitative supports the argument that derogations restrictions and the immediate from general principles must result from elimination of charges having equivalent the very letter of the derogatory provision effect. and cannot be deduced by way of extensive or restrictive interpretation. For The fundamental nature of Article 1 the limitation of the prohibition against

of Annex I also determines the instituting quantitative restrictions is interpretation of Article 11. That article expressly provided for in the last in no wise allows of derogations subparagraph of Article 1 (1) of any from the general principle of freedom or Regulation No 2513/69.

any limitation on that principle. If the

least doubt remained on this point, To sum up, as from 1 October 1970, no

Article 11 of the Annex would put an quantitative restriction, and consequently end to any ambiguity. For if the parties no quota, could be introduced or

protection is not the quota, but the (see Article 2 of Regulation No 2513/69 customs duty. And when the Community and Article 29 of Regulation No grants reductions in duties during 1035/72). Thus the problem of such

specific periods, it means that the measures was not ignored; it was settled

Community considers that its frontiers by other means which —

by their

are sufficiently protected during the specific nature — exclude those of

other periods of the year by the Article 115 of the Treaty, if indeed they application in their entirety of those were still applicable. In the judgment of

with a common agricultural policy, or absolute, the Court of Justice let it be once there is a commercial agreement, clearly understood that the only such as the one concluded between the legitimate protective measures are those

Community and Spain. based on Regulation No 2513/69, which

authorizes them exclusively 'in the case Recourse to Article 115 of the Treaty of a threat of disturbance of the markets cannot be authorized after the through imports from third countries'.

establishment of a common organization

of the market in fruit and vegetables. Consequently, in this case the French That organization has set up a single Government could not in any event market and gone far beyond the stage of justify the quota restrictions on Spanish

mere standardization of the different table relying on Article 115, grapes by markets of the Member States to which even if Spain had not concluded any the rules on commercial policy refer. For commercial agreement with the EEC. It some time now, the most assiduous is even more difficult to accept that

Treaty, the 25th Recital to Regulation implementation of the common com­

(EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council of 18 mercial policy. That common policy May 1972 on the common organization merely standardizes the conduct of each

of the market in fruit and vegetables (OJ, of States, and does so on the basis those

English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 437) of 'common principles'. However, the

explicitly limits that reference to the agreement at issue lays down a body of 'objectives'

set out in Article 110 of the precise and extremely detailed rules

severity of the conditions applied to the certificate DDI 'contains no indication protective measures under the products'

concerning the origin of the Agreement emerges. It is clear that the and 'must, of itself and without the Agreement sought to make available to 'necessary' addition of any measure of national law, the parties certain protective guarantee to the person holding it the measures in order to deal with benefit of free circulation for the goods unforeseen and unforeseeable situations. which it is intended to cover'. The Court goes on to state that the application After the Agreement between the EEC '...

of the principles referred to above is and Spain entered into force, reliance conditional upon the establishment of a had to be placed exclusively on the common commercial policy'

the Community customs certificate (DD1 State could not use the Community or T2) is sufficient to carry out powers to defend the quota until 80 % of

transactions of reciprocal importation of that quota had already been utilized. In goods between Member States. fact, that did not occur.

The customs authorities cannot demand As regards the fifth and sixth questions

any further information or any further referred for a preliminary ruling, Rivoira documents. Such information can at submits that it may be deduced from the most be asked for on other grounds, such combined provisions of Regulation No as for example by virtue of the rules on 58/62 of the Commission (Annex 1/7, quality standards. However, in the latter VI) and of the first basic Regulation No case, the absence of a declaration or the 23 in the fruit and vegetables sector (OJ, fact of the declaration's being incorrect English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 97) as to the origin of the goods cannot that the information relating to the

entail consequence in the field of origin of the grapes is designed to protect

customs. the interests of the consumer.

aforementioned judgment in Case 41/76 application of penal customs penalties.

Donckerwolcke, in which the Court ruled: In the present case, the French

authorities demanded a statement of the

origin of the goods and penalized the

National rules making the importation of incorrectness of that statement, solely in products coming from and in free order to ensure compliance with the

circulation in a Member State and quota in question consequently for and

authorization provided for in that article commercial policy and those on the

should already have been granted before common agricultural policy. As regards

the importation. Similarly, the claim of the present case, Article 1 of Regulation the French authorities was equally illegal No 2513/69 — which was applicable at

JUDGMENT OF 30. 11. 1977 - CASE 52/77

the material time — is a general restrictions to Spanish grapes during a

provision. Although as a general rule that specific period of the year even after the

that power and notified the Commission tomatoes and grapes from Community for the years 1970 and 1971 of a treatment during the last months of the

quantitative restriction and a measure year.

having equivalent effect concerning Spanish Commission's interpret­ table grapes. Moreover, the

ation is shared by Spain, as emerges in In relation to the general provision particular from the Note Verbale of the

mentioned above, the provisions of the Spanish mission to the European Agreement concluded between the EEC Communities dated 16 March 1972 (see and Spain constitute a lex specialis the annex to the written observations), in effect of which is further to limit the which Spain deplores the fact of a

freedom of the Member States. Member State's applying quantitative

against restrictions on imports applied by Taking into account the close connexion the same Member State to Spanish established by Article 1 of Annex I tomatoes between 15 May and 30 between the reduction in customs duties November. and the abolition of quantitative

restrictions, the Commission takes the To sum up, on the basis of the combined

view that the provision in question must provisions of Article 1 of Regulation No be interpreted as meaning that in respect 2513/69 (currently Article 22 of

of Spanish tomatoes and table grapes Regulation No 1035/72) and of Article 1 quantitative restrictions are abolished of Annex I to the Agreement between

only during the period for which the the EEC and Spain, Member States may reduction in customs duties is applied. In continue to apply to table grapes of

accordance with that interpretation, Spanish origin during the period between France continued to apply quantitative 1 July and 31 December each year

actually exercised that option, it can be goods in free circulation with a view to established that there are differences the application of Article 115. The between measures of commercial policy conditions laid down by the Court in applied by the Member States, which is order for an obligation to indicate origin the basic condition for the application to be lawful do not allow the importation of Article 115 of the EEC Treaty. of those goods to be made subject to an Application of that article cannot be obligation to supply proof of origin: excluded on the grounds that 'under a indication of origin may be demanded commercial agreement concluded by the if knowledge of the origin may EEC' only there is 'a Community system for reasonably be expected and importation'. For a Community system if the absence or inaccuracy of a provided for by such an agreement does declaration can give rise to an not necessarily entail the existence of a administrative penalty, which excludes uniform system applicable to trade with prohibition on importing. To demand a third countries. Pending the progressive certificate of origin amounts to introduction of such a system, an demanding proof of origin. Therefore an agreement concluded by the Community obligation to produce a certificate of can provide not only for the power, but origin for the purposes of applying possibly for also the duty on the part of Article 115 is incompatible of the Treaty Member States toapply differentiated with Article 30. measures to specific imports. Therefore the decisive factor in excluding the For the imports carried out in December application of Article 115 of the Treaty is 1971, account must also be taken of the not the existence of a Community decision of the Commission of 12 May agreement but the content of that 1971, adopted on the basis of Article 115 agreement and, in the last analysis, the of the Treaty. That decision empowered existence of a uniform system. Member States to adopt interim protective measures with a view to a As regards the questions referred for request that goods put into free a preliminary ruling the concerning circulation in other Member States obligation to produce a certificate of should be excluded from Community origin for products which have been put treatment. Under Article 1 (2) of the said into free circulation, the Commission observes that it is not known which Decision, 'a Member State may require

of the quota had been utilized. application of international standards to

fruit and vegetables, grapes are

Until then, the importer could not even accompanied by the OECD inspection certificate (containing inter alia a be asked to state the origin of the goods. statement of the country of origin),

which allows Article 3 (2) of Regulation The Commission then examines the No 80/63/EEC to be applied. same question of the lawfulness of the

obligation to produce a certificate of fall After that inspection, Spanish grapes origin from the point of view of under the provisions applicable to legis­ compatibility with Community Community produce. Under Article 5 of lation on quality standards for fruit and Regulation No 158/66/EEC (JO No 192, vegetables and with Article 30 of the p. 3282) quality control is carried out by Treaty, if applicable. Under heading VI C at all stages of as sampling marketing of Annex 1/7 to Regulation No 58, those well as during transport. standards provide, in respect of table

grapes, that each package must bear Taking the latter provision into account, legibly and indellibly marked on the it is possible for an additional inspection outside —

cleared through customs in Italy and penalties provided for in Article 8 of

redispatched to France, the Commission Regulation No 158/66/EEC, as stated in states that a first compulsory inspection Article 3 of Regulation No 93/67/EEC. must be carried out at the point of The nature and extent of those penalties

customs clearance (cf. the second are left to the discretion of the Member subparagraph of Article 3 (1) of State, which must, however, comply with Regulation No 80/63/EEC, OJ, English the prohibition on measures having Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 39). an effect equivalent to a quantitative

CAYROL v RIVOIRA

The Member State's Com­ restriction. refusal to agreement concluded by the

authorize the introduction of the goods munity with that country.

such introduction subject to proof of year between 1 July and 31 December

accuracy, that is to say production of a quantitative restrictions in existence

certificate of origin, without infringing prior to entry into force the of

Article 30 of the EEC Treaty. Regulation (EEC) No 2513/69. 3. The requirement by the importing As regards the application by a Member Member State of the indication of the State of heavier penalties for imported country of origin on the customs grapes than for domestically-produced declaration document for products in grapes in the event of failure to comply free circulation whose Community with the quality standards, the status is attested by the Community Commission takes the view that such movement certificate does not in itself discrimination is patently contrary to constitute a measure equivalent to a Article 30 of the Treaty. However, it quantitative restriction if the goods in seems unlikely that the case posited in question are covered by measures of the sixth question referred for a commercial policy adopted by that

preliminary ruling would arise in the State in conformity with the Treaty. manner stated. Such a requirement would, however, fall under the prohibition contained On the other hand, what may happen is that the same act should be prohibited in Article 30 of the EEC Treaty if the importer were required to declare, by two different provisions. Thus, if an with regard to origin, something other inaccurate statement of origin appears than what he knows or may both on the customs declaration and on

the of the grapes, it is lawful reasonably be expected to know, or if packaging to apply a penalty complying with the the omission or inaccuracy of that

with the common standards quality October 1977 At the hearing on 11 the applicable to fruit and vegetables, the defendant in the main action and application of heavier penalties to the Commission of the Communities products from other Member States submitted oral argument. than to domestic products constitutes

a measure having an effect equivalent The Advocate-General delivered his 9 November to a quantitative restriction prohibited opinion at the hearing on

by Article 30 of the Treaty. 1977.

Decision

1 By an order of 15 April 1977, which was received at the Court on 19 April

1977, the President of the Tribunale di Saluzzo referred to the Court of

Edition 1959-1962, p. 204).

2 The questions are referred in the framework of proceedings for a warrant for

attachment brought by the undertaking Leonce Cayrol (hereinafter referred to as Cayrol) against the undertaking Giovanni Rivoira & Figli, SNC (hereinafter referred to as Rivoira).

3 It appears from the case that in December 1970 and December 1971 Cayrol imported into France various consignments of table grapes of Spanish origin

which were dispatched from Italy (where the grapes had been put into free

circulation) by Rivoira and that the said consignments were accompanied by the certificate of the Istituto Nazionale per il Commercio Estero (ICE) certifying that the goods were in conformity with the quality standards and

5 In its judgment on that charge the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Montpellier, ordered Cayrol and Rivoira jointly inter alia to pay a fine in lieu of

confiscation and a fine amounting to twice the value of the goods liable to

confiscation, and rejected the argument put forward by the defendants that the grapes had acquired Italian origin by reason of processing in Italy.

6 Cayrol discharged the fine by paying the amount of a settlement which was proposed to him and applied to the Tribunale di Saluzzo for a warrant for attachment against Rivoira, on the grounds that the penalties applied were

caused by the conduct of Rivoira, who had deceived the French customs

authorities as to the origin of the goods by means of the ICE certificate. This led the President of the Tribunale to ascertain whether the action of those

must be interpreted 'to mean that from the date of the entry into force of the

agreement, that is, 1 October 1970, the Member States were no longer empowered to introduce directly (on the basis of bilateral commercial

agreements previously concluded with Spain) quantitative restrictions of

whatever nature, including import quotas, with regard to products originating in Spain (and in particular those covered by Article 11 of Annex I to the

Agreement between the EEC and Spain, tariff heading 08.04, fresh table grapes) throughout all the months of the year'.

JUDGMENT OF 30. 11. 1977 - CASE 52/77

product into the Community shall be subject to customs duties reduced by 50 % during the period between 1 January and 31 March, Article 1, according to which 'Imports into the Community of products originating in Spain which are covered by the provisions of this Annex ... shall be admitted

without quantitative restrictions', prohibits quota restrictions such as those

invoked by the French authorities.

13 However, in its observations, the Commission argued that the said Article 1

must be interpreted as meaning that quantitative restrictions are prohibited

only in so far as the provisions of the Annex apply to the products referred

and therefore quantitative restrictions, so that it must be concluded that

Article 1 is not intended to prohibit all quantitative restrictions.

16 However, where the Agreement provides for reduced duties on imports at

certain periods, it is normal for it to stipulate that that advantage may not be fettered by quantitative restrictions.

CAYROL v RIVOIRA

17 On the other hand, it cannot be concluded that for the rest of the year, in this case for the period between 1 April and 31 December, such restrictions are

9 December 1969 on the coordination and standardization of the treatment

accorded by each Member State to imports of fruit and vegetables from third countries (JO L 318, p. 6) provides that:

'1. Subject Community Provisions to the contrary and to exceptions to

decided by the Council acting in accordance with the voting upon

procedure laid down in Article 43 (2) of the Treaty on a proposal from the

Commission,

of paragraph 2, the provisions of the second indent of the first

subparagraph shall not apply during the periods specified in the Annex in

respect of the products listed therein.

2. The Council, acting in accordance with the voting procedure laid down in Article 43 (2) of the Treaty on a proposal from the Commission, shall, before 1 January 1973, decide upon the conditions under which the

prohibition contained in the second indent of paragraph 1 shall be extended to the products listed in the Annex during the periods specified therein.

JUDGMENT OF 30. 11. 1977 - CASE 52/77

apply them, shall notify the Commission thereof before the beginning of the import year.

However, as far as the 1969/1970 import year is concerned, such 1970.'

notification shall be made not later than 15 January

20 It emerges therefrom that the Member States were empowered to apply quantitative restrictions for the products referred to in the Annex to

Regulation No 2513/69 — which included table grapes — for the period of

the year stated in the Annex in question, which for table grapes is the period

existence prior to Regulation No 2513/69.

CAYROL v RIVOIRA

24 Finally, as to the interpretation of Article 115 of the Treaty which has been requested, since certain Member States including the French Republic have

actually made use of the possibility of continuing to apply quantitative restrictions to imports of table grapes of Spanish origin, differences arose at the time between the measures of commercial policy applied by the Member States, which is the basic condition for the application of Article 115.

25 It follows from the foregoing that during the part of the year between 1 July and 31 December table grapes were not covered by a Community import system such as to make Article 115 inapplicable to the case.

26 It is not disputed that two Member States obtained the authorization of the

existence of the commercial agreement between the Community and Spain formed no obstacle to the application to imports of table grapes of Article 115

of the Treaty.

29 Questions 3 to 6 referred to the Court by the President of the Tribunale di Saluzzo seek to ascertain what checks at frontiers within the Community are still compatible with Community law.

30 The third and fourth questions ask whether the fact that the importation of

products in free circulation is made subject to the production of certificates of

origin or other identifying the origin of the products at issue means of

certificates of origin was demanded in this instance, the Commission raised

the question whether the questions are relevant to the of a decision reaching in the case before the national court.

32 However, it is not for the Court of Justice to assess whether questions referred to it by a national court under Article 177 of the Treaty are relevant to the

nature and subject-matter of the action before that court, since in accordance

with the structure of the procedure for a preliminary ruling such assessment

comes within the jurisdiction of the national court.

concerning the actual origin of the goods in question even in the case of

goods put into free circulation in another Member State and covered by a

Community movement certificate.

35 In these circumstances it may be admitted that knowledge of that origin is

necessary both for the Member State concerned, so that it may determine the

scope of commercial policy measures which it is authorized to adopt pursuant

which are disproportionate, taking account of the purely administrative nature of the contravention.

38 In this respect seizure of the goods or any pecuniary penalty fixed according to the value of the goods would certainly be incompatible with the provisions

of the Treaty as being equivalent to an obstacle to the free movement of

goods.

39 In general terms, any administrative or penal measure which goes beyond

what is strictly necessary for the purposes of enabling the importing Member State to obtain reasonably complete and accurate information on the

Regulation No 58/62, permits Member States to render intra-Community trade subject to production at the frontier of documents relating to the origin

of products in free circulation coming from other Member States and

whether, in the case of a failure to comply with those standards, the

application to imported products of the penalties prescribed for the

infringement of national customs legislation does not constitute a measure

having equivalent effect prohibited by Article 30 of the Treaty, when

standards to fruit and vegetables marketed within the Community (JO No

192, 27. 10. 1966, p. 3282/66) which, to the first recital of its according preamble, aims to 'banish products of from the market, unsatisfactory quality to orientate production in such a way as to satisfy consumer requirements,

and to promote commercial dealing on the basis of fair competition and

common rules'.

43 Article 1 of Regulation No 80/63 of the Commission of 31 July 1963 on

quality inspection of fruit and vegetables imported from third countries (OJ, English Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 39) provides that 'Before [certain

No 2638/69 of the Commission of 24 December 1969 laying down additional provisions on quality control of fruit and vegetables marketed within the

Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 611) laid down the rules

for quality control.

45 According to Article 3 (1) of Regulation No 158/66, the particulars required by the quality standards which include a statement of the origin of the —

goods must be legibly and indelibly marked on one of the sides of the —

package, either printed directly onto the package or by means of a label

47 It follows that the rules relating to control of the quality of the products in

question cannot of themselves justify a requirement to produce documents

CAYROL v RIVOIRA

concerning the origin of the products, on the condition however that when an inspection is carried out the inspector may require proof that the

compulsory declarations are in accordance with the facts.

48 The second paragraph of Article 8 of Regulation No 158/66 provides that

appropriate, be regarded as discriminatory and thereby incompatible with the Treaty, in particular Article 30.

Costs

51 The costs incurred by the Commission, which has submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable.

52 As these proceedings are, so far as the parties to the main action are

concerned, in the nature of a step in the action pending before the national

court, costs are a matter for that court.

Article 115 of the Treaty.

JUDGMENT OF 30. 11. 1977 - CASE 52/77

2. Having regard to the combined provisions of Article 1 of

Regulation No 2513 /69 and of Articles 1 and 11 of Annex I to the Agreement between the EEC and Spain, Member States could continue to apply to table grapes of Spanish origin

during the part of the year between 1 July and 31 December

quantitative restrictions in existence prior to Regulation

into free circulation in another Member State is incompatible

with the provisions of the Treaty in so far as the goods are not the subject of a derogation properly authorized by the Commission by virtue of the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 115.

4. The rules relating to control of the quality of products cannot

of themselves justify a requirement to produce documents

concerning the origin of products, on condition however that

when an inspection is carried out the inspector may require

Mertens de Wilmars Mackenzie Stuart O'Keeffe Touffait

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 30 November 1977.

A. Van Houtte H. Kutscher

Registrar President