C-70/77

SIMMENTHAL v AMMINISTRAZIONE DELLE FINANZE DELLO STATO

In Case 70/77

REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Pretura, Alessandria, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between

SlMMENTHAL S.P.A.

and

Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato (State Finance Administration)

THE COURT

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

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

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

gives the following

JUDGMENT

of Regulation No 805/68 enables the order for the restitution of the sums Council to derogate from this interest for paid with as provided by prohibition. law. In addition, two Council directives of The Pretura considered that the dispute 26 June 1964 organize the health gave rise to questions the concerning inspection of intra-Community trade in interpretation or the assessment of the

bovine animals and swine (Directive No of the aforesaid provisions, and validity 64/432, Official Journal, English by an order of 28 May 1977 it referred Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 164) and the following questions to the Court of

particular Articles 23 (4) and 26 the Council of the Communities thereof, to be interpreted as auth­ of 21 April 1979, in particular

orizing the Member States to the provisions of Article 2 (a) reintroduce health inspection thereof (Official Journal, charges on goods imported from English Special Edition, 1970 third countries, and with effect from (I), p. 224)? what date, or, on the other hand, do 5. If, on the other hand, the directive not the said provisions reinforce the authorizes the Member States to prohibition on such charges having charge to traders only the actual equivalent effect in that they oblige incurred in expenditure connexion the States to charge to traders only with inspections, ought the directive the actual expenditure incurred in be to supplemented by provisions connexion with health inspection at to the determination relating of the the Community frontier? amount of the expenditure and also

4. If Directive No 72/462/EEC auth­ to the procedure and conditions for orizes the Member States to payment thereof and, if the reply is reintroduce health inspection in the affirmative, ought those

charges, is that directive, in provisions to be included:

particular Articles 12 (8), 23 (4) and In — a Community measure and 26 thereof, valid having regard to thus be uniform and standard the fact that: throughout the of the territory — The Community measure in Community; or question is wholly devoid of a — In national provisions for statement of grounds for the implementation of the directive? derogation from the prohibition 6. In any event, in a case where one or laid down in article 20 (2) of more of the Member States have Regulation (EEC) No 805/68; failed to put Directive No — The directive does not lay down 72/462/EEC into effect, are traders

— The wording of the directive Justice of the EEC written observations

implies a delegation of power to were submitted by the Council and the

the Member States to derogate Commission of the European from the prohibition on charges Communities, the Italian Government

having equivalent effect; and the plaintiff in the main action.

Since directive does Judge- — the not After hearing the report of the

provide for the proceeds of the Rapporteur and the views of the

the EEC application of Community provisions

relating to imports from third countries

national health provisions applicable to A — Observations of the plaintiff in the goods from third countries shall not be main action more favourable than those governing The plaintiff in the main action observes intra-Community trade, such a first of all that the six questions asked provision does not suffice to provide

by the referring court in fact amount to exemption from the prohibition laid two, more fundamental, questions: down in Article 12 Regulation No of

(1) The Court is asked, first, to 14/64 and Article 20 (2) of Regulation elucidate its earlier decisions No 805/68 on the levying of charges

concerning the application of the having equivalent effect in trade with

internal levying of charges having equivalent general system of taxation effect. applied in accordance with the same

criteria to domestic products and On the first question the plaintiff in the

imported products alike, and finally that main action concludes that — in view of are not the consideration for a the state of the law during the period they between into force Regu­ service provided for the importer. the entry of

Consequently, to established lations No 14/64 and No 805/68 and according case-law, they constitute charges having the implementation of Directive No an effect duties, equivalent to customs 72/462/EEC — the prohibition on the

and according to the judgment of 9 July levying of charges having equivalent

1975 (Case 21/75 Schroeder [1975] ECR effect must rightly be regarded as being 905) that concept must be given the absolute and allowing of no restriction

lation No 805/68 on 29 July 1968. inspection charges took effect is the

date of the adoption of the national In relation to the third question, which measures for the implementation of the concerns the interpretation and date of health inspection measures provided for applicability of Directive No 72/462, in in the directive. In the case of health particular the question whether it allows inspection charges which already exist, charges having equivalent effect to be they can be levied only after being levied in respect of health inspections or restructured in accordance with the new on the contrary prohibits them and criteria defined in the directive. allows only the actual expenditure

incurred in each individual case in With regard to the fourth question, connexion with inspection at the concerning the validity of Directive No external frontier to be taken into 72/462/EEC, the plaintiff in the main

account, the plaintiff observes that action analyses the relationship between Articles 12 (8), 23 (4) and 26 are the provisions of Directive No 72/462 unclear, particularly as regards the which make the cost of inspection expression according to which the chargeable to traders, and the first inspection costs are chargeable to sentence of Article 20 (2) of Regulation traders "without repayment by the No 805/68 which provides the

State". On a literal interpretation of the possibility to make derogations from the

provisions concerned it may be stated prohibition on the levying of charges

Officiel of 26 March 1966, p. 807), and prohibition on charges having it was only because of the insistence of equivalent effect, because that directive certain Member States upon the was adopted in accordance with the

insertion into the directive of a procedure laid down in Article 43 of the

provision enabling or requiring a charge Treaty. The plaintiff in the main action

to be levied that, in a spirit of challenges that argument. It is not true

compromise, payment of the cost of that the Community legislature is dero­ inspection without repayment by the absolutely free to decide to make

State was authorized, which leads back gations from the prohibition on charges

JUDGMENT OF 28. 6. 1978 — CASE 70/77

derogations already contained in the The questions spring from the

regulation and potential derogations consideration that the charges re­

which Council may decide to make. the introduced by the directive can only be The latter must be absolutely compatible intro­ Community charges, since the

with the common commercial policy duction of new national charges on

system which underlies the trading goods imported from third countries is arrangements introduced by the regu­ clearly prohibited (judgment of

the more patent since it amounts to justifies the question asked by the

giving the national authorities a free national court concerning the directive's hand (judgment of the Court of Justice invalidity for lack of a statement of of 30 October 1975, Case 23/75 Rey grounds. Possible derogations must be derogations justified by the needs of the Soda [1975] ECR 1279). common commercial policy, which Finally, there is an additional ground

excludes derogations relating to health for invalidity in the fact that the charge

measures entirely alien to the com­ is levied and kept by the Member mercial policy. States, whereas if it were really a

The other parts of the fourth question Community charge the proceeds of the

charge should be entered in the budget refer to the lack of uniformity of the of the Community. supposed charge, to a possible

prohibited discrimination because the the kind of health inspection provisions at issue make the cost of the arrangements which it was intended to

health inspections chargeable to "the introduce, each stage of the im­

consignor, the consignee or their plementation of the Community system agents", that is to say persons whose thus established must be preceded by only connexion is that they are parties the formulation of the various

to the contract for the transport of the provisions necessary for its operation. It goods which are subjected to the appears that none of these

inspection. Those persons were clearly implementation measures has been chosen with the sole aim of adopted.

guaranteeing payment upon the crossing It follows that even if they wanted to, of the frontier as effectively as possible. the Member States do not have the Insisting on the fact that the inspections power or the right lawfully to compel are organized in the public interest, the traders pay the charges to relating to plaintiff in the main action points out the health inspections. that Article 27 (6) of Directive No On the sixth question the plaintiff 72/462 provides that all the expenditure

or at national level, and in order to would be to wait for the necessary obtain an authoritative ruling as to the directive to be transposed into the

consequences of those facts. national legal order.

The answer to both parts of the fifth In the present case neither of these two

question should be in the affirmative possibilities has occurred. Therefore the

because fore­ of the uniformity and breach still exists, and this state of

seeability required of a health inspection affairs justifies the trader's refusal to

JUDGMENT OF 28. 6. 1978 — CASE 70/77

"introduce" Government observes that the first the financial charges

question, as formulated, must be resulting from health inspections. The answered in the negative. It emerges judgment of the Court of Justice of

from the case-law of the Court that 12 July 1977 in Case 89/76, Commission there are two cases in which pecuniary v Netherlands [1977] ECR 1355, charges imposed in respect of health confirms this point of view.

inspections of goods imported from As to the need contemplated in the fifth third countries do not constitute charges question for additional Community having an effect equivalent to customs measures concerning the determination duties, namely where they are the of the amount of the charges and the considerauon for a service provided for procedure for payment thereof, it the trader and where they are imposed should be observed that the expenditure within the framework of a general incurred in connexion with health system of internal taxation. inspections cannot be calculated as a

In order to answer the second question, single amount. All that could be which in fact becomes devoid of established at Community level is that it purpose if the first question is answered is a matter of financing a service in the negative, it suffices to state that provided, which is the criterion adopted

expenditure incurred in respect of incurred in connexion with health health inspections shall be chargeable to inspections to the traders concerned. On the various traders concerned. In no the other hand, by reason of the very wise does it constitute an authorization objective of the Community directive, to levy charges having an effect the question does not arise where

equivalent to customs duties, and its national legislation already charges the legality cannot be called in question. cost of those inspections to individuals.

The obligation on Member States to C — Observations of the Commission charge the expenditure resulting from health inspection to the traders The Commission observes, first, that

concerned must be uniformly observed, pursuant to the time-limits laid down in in order to avoid any distortions of Article 32 of Directive No 72/462, that trade which might result from the directive is not applicable to the imports

existence of discrepancies between the in question. legislation of Member States. The Court of Justice has held that, in "harmonize" As it was intended to answering the question as to the

divergent national provisions, Directive application of charges having an effect

Making use of that power, in Article 12 inspections of imports from third

(2) of Regulation No 14/64 the Council countries implied by that provision fulfil prohibited levying of any customs the the conditions whereby, pursuant to the

duty or charge having equivalent effect, decision in Bauhuis, charges imposed in other than as provided in the regulation respect of health controls be may itself, in respect of imports of beef and regarded falling outside the definition as

veal and bovine animals from third of a charge having an effect equivalent

countries. That provision took effect on to a customs duty. They are imposed by 1 November 1964 (judgment of Community rules and have the effect of 7 March 1972, Case 84/71 Marimex v trade between Member encouraging Italian Ministery for Finance [1972] States by protecting it from the harm ECR 89, at p. 98). Article 20 (2) of be which could caused by the existence Regulation No 805/68 repeated that health of controls on intra-Community prohibition whilst reserving power to trade if similar measures were not also the Council derogate therefrom. for goods imported from provided third

After stating the definition of charges countries.

down in Directive No 72/462, the customs duties since they are merely relevant provision is Article 9 of compensation, which is financially and Directive No 64/433 of 26 June 1964 economically justified, for the

(Official Journal, English Special obligations imposed on all the Member Edition 1963-1964, p. 185) on health States equally by Community law

JUDGMENT OF 28. 6. 1978 — CASE 70/77

(judgment of 25 January 1977, Case As to the fourth and fifth questions

46/76 Bauhuis [1977] ECR 5). concerning the validity of Directive No 72/462 and the question whether Article The Commission adds that the 23 thereof on the recovery of inspection imposition and levying of those charges still be legal if they did costs ought to be supplemented by would even not

fulfil the conditions laid down by the Community or national implementing Court in provisions, although the Commission the aforementioned judgment, introduced considers that that directive does not since they were by the

not exceed the amount of the actual applying Articles 12 (8), 23 (4) and 26 expenditure incurred in connexion with of the directive, or to ascertain, whether such inspections. traders obliged to the cost of are pay The answer to the third question should health inspections carried out pursuant

be that Directive No 72/462, in to the directive if the Member State particular Articles 23 (4) and 26 thereof, which purports to levy them is not

does not authorize the Member States applying other provisions of the

to reintroduce health inspection charges directive. on goods imported from third countries, In either case, the answer can only be in but obliges them to charge to the the affirmative. In no case do the consignor, the consignee or their agents situations envisaged involve the illegality the actual expenditure incurred in of national provisions and national connexion with the inspections provided measures validly adopted in partial for in Article 23 (1) and Article 24 of application of the directive, with which the directive respectively. However, as traders are therefore obliged to comply. regards the inspections referred to in Article 23 (1) and (3), the national D — Observations of the Council measures the implementation ensuring of the obligation referred to in Article After recalling and describing the steps

23 (4) should be brought into force not taken by the Council and the

later than 1 January 1976. Commission with regard to preventive

However, the rule laid down in that derogation from Regulation No 805/68. judgment is not applicable in the case of The Council proposes that it should be charges imposed in respect of an answered that the inspection charge is inspection organized on a Community different in kind from charges having basis, which was not true of the equivalent effect, so that it was not "derogate" Schroeder case, since although beef and necessary to from that regu­

veal preserves are covered by the organi­ lation, and hence to provide a statement zation of the market, they do not come of grounds for a derogation which did within the ambit of Directive No not exist. The fifth question asks

72/462/EEC, which concerns only whether Directive No 72/462/EEC fresh meat. must be supplemented by national or

The Council considers that the Court Community provisions relating to the

procedure and conditions for payment should extend to health inspections on of the charges. The Council considers imports from third countries carried out that under the third paragraph of on goods covered by Directive No 72/462/EEC those of its decisions Article 189 of the Treaty, Directive No 72/462/EEC is exempt from the which already accept, in the case of obligation to provide for everything in intra-Community trade, that charges for detail and may be executed by national health inspections imposed (and implementing measures. organized) at Community level do not constitute chargeshaving equivalent However, the judgments of the Court effect, provided that the amount thereof of Justice of 25 January 1977 and

the Member States are allowed a period 26 of the directive, as well as allowing

JUDGMENT OF 28. 6. 1978 — CASE 70/77

the sixth question to be answered in the completely different nature; (b) that the affirmative. Member States are prohibited from The answer to the question applying in their trade with third concerning "own (fourth indent countries provisions more favourable of the resources"

intra- fourth question) should be that the fact than those governing their

that Directive No 72/462­ /EEC leaves it Community trade (Article 9 of Directive

to the Member States to decide on the No 64/433/EEC); and (c) that

out on imports of beef and veal prior to At November the hearing on 16 1977, the implementation of Directive No oral argument was presented by the 72/462 — which is what occurred in plaintiff in the main action, represented relation to the first of the importations by E. Cappelli, the Italian Government, at issue. Could a Community inspection represented by A. Marzano, the which did not yet exist justify the Commission of the European imposition of charges in respect of those Communities, represented by its Agent, inspections? In support of a solution G. Campogrande, and the Council of different from that adopted in the the European Communities, represented judgment of 9 July 1975 (Schroeder), the Council by its Agent, C. Giorgi. argues: (a) that veterinary inspection charges cannot be treated in The Advocate General delivered his the same way as charges having opinion at the hearing on 21 February equivalent effect, as they are of a 1978.

Decision

By an order of 28 May 1977, which was received at the Court Registry on 6 June 1977, the Pretura, Alessandria, referred various questions under

Article 177 of the EEC Treaty concerning, first, the interpretation of Article 12 (2) of Regulation No 14/64 of the Council of 5 February 1964 on the

progressive establishment of a common organization of the market in beef and veal (Journal Officiel of 27 February 1964, p. 562) and Article 20 (2) of Regulation No 805/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common

organization of the market in beef and veal (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 187) and, secondly, the interpretation and

visita) in respect of health inspections to which two consignments of frozen beef from a third country were subjected upon importation into Italy, the

first consignment on 29 November 1971 and the second on 11 January 1973.

3 The plaintiff in the main action argues that the charges at issue are charges

having an effect equivalent to customs duties, the levying of which is incompatible with Article 12 (2) of Regulation No 14/64 and Article 20 (2) of Regulation No 805/68, which both prohibit, subject to the exceptions

and derogations for which they make levying any customsprovision, the of

duty or charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty on imports into the Community from a third country of fresh, chilled or frozen meat of domestic bovine animals.

basis of allegations presented by the plaintiff and can make an order against the other party without having given him the opportunity to present his observations.

6 The proceedings are contested only if the party against whom the order is made raises objections to the decision.

JUDGMENT OF 28. 6. 1978 — CASE 70/77

7 It is said to follow that in the course of the proceedings only one of the

parties to the main action is able to submit observations on the expediency of a reference for a preliminary ruling or, if need be, to take part or

collaborate with the national coun in drawing up the questions to be referred to the Court of Justice, whereas the other has no such opportunity and before the Court of Justice can neither alter nor add to the questions

Court of Justice to consider the stage of the proceedings at which the

question was put.

10 Nevertheless, although Article 177 does not make the reference to the

Court subject to whether the proceedings during which the national court

draws up the reference for a preliminary ruling were defended, it may where necessary prove to be in the interests of the proper administration of

justice that a question should be referred for a preliminary ruling only after both sides have been heard.

bovine animals and meat imponed from third countries constitutes a charge

having an effect equivalent to a customs duty.

SIMMENTHAL v AMMINISTRAZIONE DELLE FINANZE DELLO STATO

13 That question is intended to ascertain whether the prohibitions laid down in those two provisions on the levying of charges having equivalent effect

extend to charges levied in respect of health inspections carried pecuniary out on bovine animals and meat imported from third countries.

14 In its judgment of 7 March 1972 (Case 84/71 Marimex [1972] ECR 89, at

16 In the event of the first question being answered in the affirmative, it is then asked on what date the prohibition on the levying of such pecuniary charges took effect.

17 The answer must be that, as the Coun has already found in its judgment of 7 March 1972 (Case 84/71 Marimex [1972] ECR 89 at p. 98), the

provisions of Article(2) of Regulation No 14/64 took effect on 12 (1) and

1 November 1964, and those of Article 20 (2) of Regulation No 805/68 on 29 July 1968.

The third and fourth questions

18 The third and fourth questions ask whether Council Directive No 72/462 of

general principle of the prohibition on the levying of charges having equivalent effect which is laid down in those provisions, and, if so, whether those regulations could validly provide for a power to make an exception to

or to derogate from that prohibition.

20 It is necessary to examine first whether the Council and, where appropriate, the Commission may, in the regulations which they adopt, provide for exceptions or derogations of that nature.

21 Where the elimination of charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties is applied to trade with third countries, its objectives and legal basis are different from those which underlie and justify the prohibition of such charges in intra-Community trade.

22 In so far as intra-Community trade is concerned, the prohibition is laid down in Article 9 of the Treaty itself, and is unconditional and absolute

because it is designed to establish free movement of goods within the

they are intended to make inspections at frontiers within the Community unnecessary.

SIMMENTHAL v AMMINISTRAZIONE DELLE FINANZE DELLO STATO

25 In fact, these considerations do not apply as regards pecuniary charges

relating to inspections of products from third countries, where it is a

question not of abolishing the charges but rather of making them uniform

and where the prohibition, maintenance, amendment or introduction of

relevant trade with third countries must be uniform in all the Member States.

28 Accordingly, the Council has not in any respect infringed the Treaty or the rules adopted for its implementation by providing in Article 12 (2) of Regu­

lation No 14/64 and Article 20 (2) of Regulation No 805/68 that such

exceptions or derogations might be made.

29 Therefore it is necessary to consider whether the charges having equivalent effect to which the national coun refers come under one of the exceptions

or derogations provided for in the regulations cited.

32 Nevertheless, it is to be observed that that regulation was repealed with

effect from 29 July 1968 and replaced by Regulation No 805/68.

33 Article 20 (2) of Regulation No 805/68, which is part of Title II of that

regulation concerning trade with third countries, provides that: "Save as

otherwise provided in this regulation or where derogation therefrom is decided by the Council, acting in accordance with the voting procedure laid down in Article 43 (2) of the Treaty on a proposal from the Commission, the following shall be prohibited: the levying of any charge having effect equivalent to a customs duty ...".

34 Although Regulation No 805/68 contains no exception relating to health inspection charges, it must be considered whether the existence of a dero­

organization of a uniform health inspection, the detailed rules for which are to be established by the Council, the Commission or the Member States, as the case may be.

37 Article 12 (1) and (7) and Articles 23, 24 and 25 of the directive place a

duty on Member States to carry out a health inspection upon importation of animals (Article 12) and fresh meat (Articles 23, 24 and 25), and Articles 12 (8), 23 (4) and 26 provide that the expenditure incurred pursuant to the

articles in question "shall be chargeable to the consignor, the consignee or

their agents, without repayment by the State".

38 In providing that the expenses of the veterinary and public health inspections at issue must be charged to the traders specified, those

41 In fact, each of the provisions referred to clearly states that the expenditure which is to be recovered is that incurred pursuant to Articles 12, 23, 24 and 25 of the directive.

42 Article 32 of Directive No 72/462 provides that:

"1. The Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and

administrative provisions necessary to comply with this directive and its annexes:

(a) not later than 1 October 1973 as regards the provisions of Article 23 (1) and (3) (a), (b) and (c);

(b) not later than 1 January 1976 as regards all the other provisions, except those which make provisions for a Community procedure.

Directive of 26 June 1964, on health problems affecting intra-Community in fresh meat, shall be revoked."

44 Thus, as is indicated moreover in the last recital in the preamble to

Directive No 72/462, a large number of the provisions of that directive

JUDGMENT OF 28. 6. 1978 — CASE 70/77

cannot be implemented until the necessary measures have been taken by the Community particularly authorities, in the context of the Standing Veterinary Committee procedure which is referred to in Articles 29 and 30 of the directive.

45 The implementation of the veterinary and public health inspections relating to animals and fresh meat from third countries provided for in Article 12, 23, 24 and 25 of the directive requires — at all events in so far as it concerns trade and transport other than transit through Community the

indent of Article 23 (2) the meat must be accompanied by an animal health certificate which is in conformity with a specimen drawn up after obtaining

the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee and by a public health certificate complying with Annex C to the directive.

47 Furthermore, Article 4 of the directive provides that the list of third

countries must be supplemented by a list of the establishments in those

(slaughterhouses, cutting plants and cold stores) from countries which the

Member States may authorize importation of fresh meat.

50 Finally, Article 27 provides that the Member States shall draw up and

communicate to the Commission lists of the inspection posts for the

SIMMENTHAL v AMMINISTRAZIONE DELLE FINANZE DELLO STATO

importing of animals and fresh meat, and that those posts must be approved in accordance with the Standing Veterinary Committee procedure.

51 Although it appears that the list referred to in the second indent of Article 23 (2) has been drawn up, at all events it has not been published in the

Official Journal, and according to the statements of the Commission the

uniformity of the inspection systems with a view to preventing distortions of

competition and deflections of trade within the Common Market.

55 Therefore the answer to the third and fourth questions must be as follows:

(a) The Council does not infringe any provision of Community law by providing in the regulations which it adopts, in particular in Article 12

(2) of Regulation No 14/64 and Article 20 (2) of Regulation No 805/68, for the possibility of making exceptions or derogations to be —

drawn up in a form determined by the Council from the prohibition —

26 of Directive No 72/462 provide for derogations from the prohibition on the levying of charges having equivalent effect which is laid down in Article 20 of Regulation No 805/68, those derogations can take effect

only after the Member States have been given the opportunity to organize as prescribed in the directive the inspections referred to in Articles 12, 23, 24 and 25 thereof.

The fifth and sixth questions

56 The answers given to the third and fourth questions render consideration of the other questions purposeless.

57 However, in order to provide the national court with an appropriate answer for the purpose of the application of Community law in the dispute before it, it must be considered whether an exception or derogation such as

provided for in Article 12 (2) of Regulation No 14/64 and Article 20 (2) of Regulation No 805/68 should not be recognized on the basis of other provisions of Community law.

intra-Community trade in fresh meat, its specific purpose is to lay down, on a provisional basis pending the implementation of the Community system

for imports of fresh meat from third countries, a rule applicable to the

national arrangements remaining in force in order to prevent their being less strict or less onerous than the inspection arrangements laid down in the

directive for intra-Community trade.

60 That rule is clearly intended to ensure that traders who put on the market

fresh meat originating within the Community should not be treated less

62 The rule was also repeated in 1972, in Article 11 of Council Directive No 72/461 of 12 December 1972 (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1972 (31 December); Journal Officiel L 302, p. 24) on health problems

affecting intra-Community trade in fresh meat, supplementing Directive No 64/433.

63 According to the last recital in the preamble to Directive No 72/461, the

provision in question is intended to set down "in this directive the general

principle of non-discrimination; whereas it should accordingly be expressly laid down, pending specific Community rules covering imports from third countries, that the treatment to be applied to third countries by each Member State should not be more favourable than the treatment applied, pursuant to this directive, to trade between the Member States".

64 Finally, it should be pointed out that the rule is expressly referred to in Article 32 (3) of Directive No 72/462, cited by the Pretura, Alessandria, which provides that Article 9 of Directive No 64/433 shall remain in force until such time as the Member States are able to implement the provisions of the directive "involving a Community procedure".

66 Although, on a literal interpretation of Article 12 (2) of Regulation No 14/64, that regulation could not strictly be said to lay down an exception, it cannot be accepted that by using the words "the present regulation"

the

Council intended to exclude Regulation No 14/64 alone from the

application of a rule which it has taken care to repeat in a large number of provisions of the same kind.

67 The intention to maintain the principle of non-discrimination expressed in Article 9 of Directive No 64/433 is confirmed by Article 6 of Council Directive No 77/98 of 21 December 1976 (Official Journal L 26 of 31

January 1977, p. 81) amending inter alia Article 33 of Directive No 72/462, which in its amended version provides that when Articles 8 and 16 of

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

concerned, a step in the action pending before the national court, the

decision on costs is a matter for that court.

SIMMENTHAL v AMMINISTRAZIONE DELLE FINANZE DELLO STATO

On those grounds,

THE COURT

2. The provisions of Article 12 (1) and (2) of Regulation No 14/64

took effect on 1 November 1964, and those of Article 20 (2) of Regu­ lation No 805/68 on 29 July 1968.

3. (a) The Council does not infringe any provision of Community law by providing in the regulations which it adopts, in particular in Article 12 (2) of Regulation No 14/64 and Article 20 (2) of Regulation No 805/68, for the possibility of making exceptions

or derogations — to be drawn up in a form determined by the

Council — from the prohibition on the levying of charges having equivalent effect in trade with third countries, provided however that the intrinsic effect of those charges on the relevant trade

with third countries is uniform in all the Member States.

20 (2) of Regulation No 805/68 derogates from the prohibition on

the imposition of health inspection charges to the extent necessary to ensure non-dis­ criminatory treatment, on the one hand, of traders

who put fresh meat on the market in intra-Community trade and thereby become liable to pay health inspection charges in the

exporting Member State and, on the other hand, of those who

import from third countries, provided that those charges do not

exceed the actual cost of the inspections.

My Lords, the Italian Statute of 27 July 1934

consolidating Italian public health In this case the Court is once again legislation (the "testo unico delle leggi confronted with questions as to the sanitarie", G.U. No 186 of 9 August lawfulness of charges imposed in Italy 1934, the beef was subjected, on its for the veterinary inspection of arrival in Italy, to veterinary inspection. imported meat. The case comes before For such inspections charges were pres­

the Courtby way of a reference for a Statute No Pretore of cribed by 1239 of preliminary ruling by the December (G.U. 30 1970 No 26 of Alessandria. 1 February 1971). They amounted to Lit On 29 November 1971 and on 128 370 for the first consignment and to

11 January 1973, Simmenthal S.p.A., the Lit 186 775 for the second. Those sums

Plaintiff in the proceedings before the were paid by the Plaintiff to the

Pretore, imported consignments of Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Uruguyan frozen beef into Italy. It Stato, which is the Defendant in the