C-2/78

JUDGMENT OF 16. 5. 1979 — CASE 2/78

difficulties than would result from wishing to import into that State such another possible system cannot in products bearing a designation of itself constitute a failure by that State origin duly adopted by that State and to fulfil its obligations under Article in free circulation in a regular manner 30 of the Treaty. in a Member State other than that of

3. A Member State which applies a origin, are able to effect such imports system for checking the authenticity and are not placed at a disadvantage of products bearing a designation of as compared with direct importers, origin has a duty to ensure, seeking if save in so far as appears reasonable necessary in this respect the assistance and strictly necessary to ensure the of the Commission, that traders authenticity of those products.

In Case 2/78

Commission of the European Communities, represented by its Legal Adviser, Rene-Christian Béraud, acting as Agent, assisted by Robert Collin, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Mario Cervino, Legal Adviser to the Commission, Jean Monnet Building, Kirchberg, applicant v

Kingdom of BELGIUM, represented by Robert Hoebaer, Director at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, External Trade and Co-operation with the Developing Countries, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxem­ bourg at the Belgian Embassy, defendant

APPLICATION for a declaration that the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the EEC Treaty,

THE COURT

composed of: H. Kutscher, President, J. Mertens de Wilmars and Lord Mackenzie Stuart (Presidents of Chambers), P. Pescatore, M. Sørensen, A. O'Keeffe and G. Bosco, Judges,

Advocate General: G. Reischl Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

easily obtainable by importers of an the Belgian authorities concerned on authentic product which has been put 10 November 1974. into free circulation in a regular manner in another Member State than by Nevertheless it was only by letter dated importers of the same product coming 5 March 1976 from the Permanent Rep directly from the country of origin resentative of Belgium to the President constitutes a measure having an effect of the Commission that the latter was equivalent to a quantitative restriction as informed that the Belgian Government prohibited by the Treaty." had the firm intention of making the requisite amendments to the system of control of designations of origin as soon By letter dated 20 March 1974 the as possible. According to the letter, the Commission had already informed the solution contemplated, said to be Belgian Government and the various consistent with the judgment in complainants that the above-mentioned Dassonville, was as follows: rules were likely to make the import of the products in question impossible from "If the product is imported directly from Member States other than the producer the producer country it should be Member State and that the legitimate accompanied by a certificate endorsing objective pursued by the Belgian auth the right to the designation of origin. orities, namely the protection of the Branded products from the country of designation of origin of the products under Article 36, could be attained as origin will nevertheless not have to comply with this requirement on effectively by other means which would condition that the containers carry sealed not prevent such import. closures which cannot be tampered with and the labels bear certain relevant infor

concerned. Since the Commission was of the opinion that the amendments contemplated After numerous meetings between the would make no substantial change to the relevant Belgian authorities and the existing wrongful situation, by letter Commission the latter sent a letter dated dated 14 October 1976 it formally 16 October 1975 to the Belgian auth invited the Belgian Government under orities giving them a period of 15 days to the first paragraph of Article 169 of the submit their answer to certain possible Treaty to submit its observations.

COMMISSION v BELGIUM

notice, the Commission on 8 December (b) the label on the container carries 1976 delivered a reasoned opinion the following particulars in clearly pursuant to Article 169 requiring legible print: Belgium to comply therewith. — 'bottled in the country of origin'; By letter dated 8 December 1976 the — the name or registered trade­ Belgian Government, referring to the mark and address of the manu­ formal letter requesting observations, facturer. asked the Commission to reconsider its position having regard to the impending 2. Spirits bearing a designation or origin, publication (in fact on 11 February 1977) other than those referred to in in the Moniteur Belge of an Arrete Ministeriel dated 2 December 1976. It paragraph (1) above, imported from a Member State of the EEC, provided added that the repeal of the provisions of that they are accompanied by one of the Royal Decree No 57 of 20 December the following official documents: 1934 on spirits referred to in the judgment in Dassonville was provided for (a) the document relating to the in a draft law the discussion of which in product, issued by the authorities Parliament was almost completed. of the country of origin, However, such repeal did not take place. certifying the right to the designation of origin;

JUDGMENT OF 16. 5. 1979 — CASE 2/78

fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of In its defence the Kingdom of Belgium the EEC Treaty. contends that the Court should:

— declare the application of the The action was registered at the Court Commission unfounded; Registry on 3 January 1978. — order the Commission to pay the The Belgian Arrêté Ministériel of 2 costs.

December 1976 was repealed by Arrêté - Ministériel of 27 February 1978 In its reply and in its written obser­ (Moniteur Belge of 15 April 1978). vations on the submissions of the French Government and Government of the By orders dated respectively 10 May United Kingdom the Commission 1978 and 17 August 1978 the Court maintains unchanged the conclusions in allowed the French Government and the its application. Government of the United Kingdom to intervene in support of the Kingdom of In its rejoinder the Kingdom of Belgium Belgium. claims that the Court should:

— declare the application of the Upon hearing the report of the Judge- Commission inadmissible and in any Rapporteur and the views of the event unfounded; Advocate General the Court decided to open the oral procedure without any — order the Commission to bear the preparatory inquiry. costs.

The interveners, the French Government II — Conclusions of the parties and the Government of the United Kingdom, are at one in their written observations on the substance of the case

difficulty, that certificate is available — Belgian authorities in their letter of if at all — with much greater difficulty 5 March 1976 and which the to traders wishing to import into that Commission in its letter of 14 October Member State the same products in free 1976 inviting observations had already circulation in other Member States. Such regarded as not being sufficient to bring a difficulty is apparent when the the rules in question into conformity products are in free circulation in a with the provisions of Article 30. While Member State which does not recognize the products in question when directly their designation of origin since in such a imported from the country of origin case the certificate of authenticity is not need henceforth no longer be required on importation direct from the accompanied by a certificate of producer country. But the difficulty authenticity when they satisfy the exists even where, as in the case of requirements elsewhere suggested by the Belgium, the Member State requires the Commission (containers with so-called certificate of authenticity on importation. "tamper-proof" closures and bearing Such a certificate does not usually particulars on the closure and on a accompany each container but only label), on the other hand products in free consignments, and the latter cannot circulation in Member States other than therefore be split up for the purpose of the country of origin must still be possible re-exportation. accompanied by an official document certifying their right to the designation of origin which, it is true, need no longer be issued only by that country but is also obtainable in the Member State of last export. Nevertheless, such a document remains, according to the aforementioned case-law, "less easily This is why the Court of Justice obtainable by importers of an authentic confirmed the position adopted by the Commission and ruled in the case of product which has been put into free circulation in a regular manner in Dassonville that the requirement by a Member State of a certificate of another Member State than by importers of the same product coming directly authenticity which is less easily from the country of origin." The obtainable by importers of an authentic difference in treatment between those product which has been put into free two classes of traders is thus maintained circulation in a regular manner in to the detriment of "indirect" importers another Member State than by importers whose position, contrary to that of of the same product coming directly traders importing directly from the from the country of origin constitutes a country of origin, has. not been measure having an effect equivalent to a appreciably improved. quantitative restriction as prohibited by Article 30 of the Treaty.

The Commission nevertheless does referred to in Article 1 (2) (a), (b) and consider whether the rules may be (c). allowed under Article 36 and concludes that this will be so only where the provisions in question are justified by the In the Commission's view such rules objective pursued, in the present case the protection of designations of origin, the would in the first place be compatible with the second sentence of Article 36. specific objective of which is the guarantee given to the purchaser that the Further, they would certainly be less of an obstacle to trade than the rules product he intends to buy is entitled to the designation of origin. That guarantee objected to in respect of the products in is already largely secured in all Member question in free circulation in Member States by national rules relating to unfair States other than the country of origin competition, passing off or, more while being effective but not excessive in generally, fraud in relation to products. attaining the desired objective; they would thus be justified within the meaning of the first sentence of that article. The system imposed on the products in question in free circulation in a regular manner in Member States other than the country of origin, which is more In its defence the Kingdom of Belgium restrictive than that imposed on the same states first that the Arrêté Ministériel of products imported directly from the 2 December 1976 was repealed by the country of origin has even less justi­ Arrêté Ministériel of 27 February 1978. fication since it is the same products, all By repealing the Arrêté Ministériel of 2

The administrative procedure has been Assuming that the certificate of made more flexible since 1974. The authenticity were to be treated as a circular to the customs of 8 February measure having an effect equivalent to a restriction, which it is not, the 1974 amending that of 9 April 1971 as supplemented by the circular of requirement of such a certificate would 18 August 1972, expressly provided that fall within the exception provided for in customs officials no longer have to Article 36 of the Treaty, in the present concern themselves with the name of the case the protection of industrial and consignee of the goods referred to in the commercial property. certificate of origin. Moreover, customs officials have been instructed not to object to importation on the ground that at the time the goods were presented the If designations of origin are important; in certificate was not produced; in such a Belgium, it is because they are based: on case the importer is required to put the analyses of the characteristics of the matter in order within 20 days. product which can be assessed only at the production stage. Rules to forestall frauds are clearly less effective at later stages, in the present case those of distri­ bution and sale, than at the production In repealing the Arrêté Ministériel of stage. The designation of origin is 2 December 1976 Belgium brought its inspired not only by a desire to protect rules into line with those of the Member industrial and commercial property but, States of the Community which protect from the point of view of protecting designations of origin of spirits within public health, has a much wider aim: it is their territory. As regards Scotch whisky in fact a moral guarantee by the auth­ the Belgian system of control is identical orities of the quality of the product. The to that applied by France. certificate of authenticity guarantees the designation of origin.

The difficulties which certain importers As regards the arguments put forward by may perhaps face (for example the case the Belgian Government in respect of of certificates of authenticity not Article 30, the Commission maintains accompanying consignments which are that it has for a long time been split up) are the result of a situation established that there is a measure having which is neither arbitrary nor discrimi­ equivalent effect not only when the natory; it is for the importer to avoid measure is likely to make imports placing himself in such a position. impossible but also when it is such as to Moreover, the lack of harmony between make them more difficult or onerous. national laws in relation to certificates of This is obviously the case here since the authenticity could also create problems: Scottish origin of the product gives it a the Belgian Government is prepared to higher market value than that of whisky collaborate wihin the EEC to seek a satis­ whose origin is not specified and which factory solution. may be imported without an official document.

requirement of a certificate of The Commission further observes that authenticity and would give a guarantee the certificate of authenticity is not to the consumer at least equal to that required where the products in question given by the certificate. It is no more are imported from the Netherlands or difficult to draw up a false certificate of Luxembourg where they are in free circu­ authenticity than to make up and place lation, although neither of those two in position new tamper-proof seals. The countries has recognized the designation argument to the effect that such a seal of origin "Scotch whisky", and this also would give no guarantee where the constitutes "arbitrary discrimination" bottling is done in non-producer sufficient in itself to prevent recourse to Member States of the EEC is irrelevant Article 36. since the Commission has always assumed that the sealing would be undertaken in the country of origin.

This being so the problem, in short, is not to ascertain whether the consumer Therefore the Court clearly considered guarantee that the product in question is that "the requirement by a Member State indeed the one entitled to the of a certificate of authenticity which is designation of origin must or must not less easily obtainable by importers of an be treated as having precedence over the authentic product which has been put commercial interest of an importer. The into free circulation in a regular manner problem is solely to ascertain whether in another Member State than by that legitimate guarantee cannot be given importers of the same product coming by means which are not an obstacle directly from the country of origin" or are less of an obstacle to trade than constituted arbitrary discrimination or a the requirement of a certificate of disguised restriction on trade between authenticity, for it is only on that Member States within the meaning of the condition that pending possible harmo­ second sentence of Article 36. nization at a Community level national

JUDGMENT OF 16. 5. 1979 — CASE 2/78

(a) Elimination of the requirement of a The Kingdom of Belgium challenges the statement of the name of a Belgian effectiveness of the system of tamper- consignee in the certificate of origin. proof seals advocated by the Commission to prevent possible fraud.

(b) Acceptance of certificates issued by the United Kingdom authorities for countries other than Belgium. In the first place, that system does not cover all marketing eventualities and in particular that of the bottling of spirits (c) Abolition of the rejection at the outside the producer country. To avoid frontier of consignments of spirits any fraud in bottling in non-producer bearing a designation but submitted countries which do not protect the without the necessary document and designation of origin of spirits the provision of opportunity for producer country would have to export importers of one or more periods in only bottled products, which is not the order to obtain the document. case.

COMMISSION v BELGIUM

JUDGMENT OF 16. S. 1979 — CASE 2/78

In practice the situations likely to attract accounts are maintained by the revenue the Commission's criticism relate mainly authorities, which also conduct an to the re-exportation to another Member annual stock-taking. State of spirits imported from France in bulk and bottled in the importing country. In a situation of this nature the use of seals and labelling to protect A trader must have received the goods designations of origin would afford no together with the movement documents effective protection if it were not certifying their designation of origin. He accompanied by rules such as to control must maintain them in special premises the content of the containers. In the separated by a public way from premises absence of such rules at a Community containing other spirits. Account of level regarding spirits, seals and labels spirits coming in and going out is kept cannot, at a technical level, afford a satis­ by the revenue authorities, which also factory guarantee of the authenticity of carry out an annual stock-taking. those products. Such protection can be afforded properly only by means of certi­ ficates of authenticity. A trader situate in another Member State of the Community may be subject to no conditions of that kind. Therefore, in In the view of the French Government view of the differences between the

COMMISSION v BELGIUM

protect producers, on the one hand, Kingdom of Belgium in the circum­ against unfair competition and stances which are at the origin of the consumers, on the other, against fraud present case were condemned by the and deception by guaranteeing the Court in its judgment in Dassonville. At quality of the product. the hearing in that case the Commission suggested several means of control which would be less of an obstacle to trade. It is clear that the responsible Belgian auth­ orities are not lacking in means other The Commission outlines the means of than the certificate of authenticity to action which the French rules give both check whether the product in question is to the person entitled to use the in fact authentic, whether the product is designation and to the administration in transported in its original presentation or order to curb unlawful use of that in bulk. designation and then refers to the methods of supervision which enable frauds to be forestalled and proved and which are primarily concerned with matters of taxation. Control and surveil­ lance are only means to establish proof of infringement. Means of proof are a As regards the effectiveness of the matter of procedure and are in no way tamper-proof seal in conjunction with an integral pan of the specific object of corresponding labelling showing the the right conferred by the designation of name of the importer, there are circums­ origin. Article 36 of the Treaty cannot tances in which the French legislation therefore be relied upon to maintain such itself advocates and substitutes seals, means of proof in disregard of the stamps or bands in place of movement provisions of Article 30. documents (cf. "Le Droit des Appellations d'Origine", J. M. Auby, R. Plaisant, Librairie Technique, No 253, pages 102 and 104).

effective control, since they would know The Government of the United Kingdom the name of the importer. Effective challenges the effectiveness of the control is therefore quite possible and suggestions made by the Commission this is the desired aim. during the course of the Dassonville case whereby the authenticity of Scotch whisky could be assured without the necessity of putting parallel importers to In the view of the Government of the the trouble of securing retrospective certi­ United Kingdom, intervening, since an fication. The system of certification at exclusive dealing system is not per se present in force is aimed at preventing contrary to the Treaty the decision in not only unfair but also, and this with Dassonvilie must be read subject to the even greater reason, fraudulent practices qualification that any difficulty arising (passing off as Scotch whisky a substance solely from the fact that the parallel which is not Scotch whisky) which could importer is not the beneficiary of an harm the health of the consumer. This exclusive dealing agreement must be comes within the overriding conside­ discounted. That judgment proceeded on ration of the protection of life and health the basis that whilst it was possible for enshrined in Article 36 of the Treaty. a parallel importer to obtain a retrospective certificate of authenticity from the United Kingdom authorities, nevertheless under the arrangements then In these circumstances the Government in force it might have been a matter of some difficulty. Even at that time the of the United Kingdom asks the Court difficulty was more apparent than real to rule that the system of certification of and more flexible arrangements have Scotch whisky as now in operation fulfils now been made. These include: the criteria required by Community law in so far as is humanly possible in the absence of a Community system of certi­ (a) allowing a dealer in an intermediate fication and to endorse the view that the Member State to obtain a best long-term solution of the problem is retrospective certificate in respect of the introduction of a Community-wide a part consignment destined for re­ system of certification at the earliest export to a third Member State, on possible time. provision of documentary evidence to the competent authorities in the United Kingdom, and

Commission states that at present to V — Oral procedure obtain either a retroactive certificate or a certificate issued in confidence by the At the hearing on 21 February 1979 oral British customs still requires the submissions were made by the distributor to comply with complex Commission, represented by its Legal administrative formalities which make Adviser, René-Christian Béraud, assisted the certificates of authenticity yet more by Robert Collin, Advocate of the Paris difficult to obtain for parallel importers Bar, by the Kingdom of Belgium, than for direct importers. represented by Robert Hoebaer, Director at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, As regards alternative methods of External Trade and Co-operation with control, the Commission refers to its the Developing Countries, and by the comments on the observations of the Government of the United Kingdom, French Government. represented by R. D. Munrow of the Treasury Solicitor's Department. Finally, the criterion of public health as In answer to a question asked at the contemplated by Article 36 is nowhere in hearing, the representative of the question in the matter of designations of Government of the United Kingdom origin. confirmed that a trader who buys Scotch whisky from an exclusive distributor in France for importation into and resale in Belgium may obtain from HM Customs a certificate of origin in conditions of IV — Information supplied at the confidentiality. For this purpose it is request of the Court necessary to quote the serial numbers of the bottles in question and give sufficient particulars to enable the customs auth­ In response to a request by the Court on orities to trace the original transaction. 14 December 1978 the Government of The facility is not often used. the Kingdom of Belgium lodged at the Registry of the Court on 10 February The representative of the Kingdom of 1979 copies of the circulars of 9 April Belgium confirmed that in the above- mentioned circumstances such a certi­ 1971, 18 August 1972, 8 February 1974, 16 December 1974 and 4 August 1978 ficate would be accepted by the sent by the Administration Centrale des responsible Belgian authorities. Douanes et Accises to customs offices in The Advocate General delivered his relation to the importation of inter alia opinion at the hearing on 20 March wines and spirits. 1979.

4 The Belgian Law of 18 April 1927 treats as designations of origin such as are notified to the Belgian Government by the governments concerned as being designations of origin officially and finally adopted.

5 Article 1 (1) of the Royal Decree No 57 of 20 December 1934 states that it is prohibited to import, sell, display for sale, have possession of or transport

COMMISSION v BELGIUM

for the purposes of sale or delivery, spirits bearing a designation of origin duly adopted by the Belgian Government when such spirits are not accompanied by an official document certifying their right to such designation.

6 The designation of origin "Scotch whisky" is included among those adopted by the Belgian Government and the difficulties in obtaining the above- mentioned official document experienced by certain Belgian importers of this product in particular from a Member State other than that of origin have given rise to various complaints to the Commission.

7 Article 1 of the above-mentioned Arrêté Ministériel of 2 December 1976 published in the Moniteur Beige on 11 February 1977 provides as follows:

2. Spirits bearing a designation of origin, other than those referred to in paragraph (1) above, imported from a Member State of the EEC, provided that they are accompanied by one of the following official documents:

(a) the document relating to the product, issued by the authorities of the country of origin, certifying the right to the designation of origin;

JUDGMENT OF 16. 5. 1979 — CASE 2/78

(b) the copy or photocopy of the document referred to in subparagraph (a) above certified as a true copy of the original by the authorities of the exporting country, provided that those authorities state on the copy or the photocopy of the document of origin the quantity of spirits exported to Belgium if this differs from the quantity stated in the original document;

(c) a document relating to the product issued by the authorities of the exporting country certifying the right to the designation of origin."

8 That Arrêté Ministériel was repealed by the Arrêté Ministériel of 27 February 1978 published in the Moniteur Belge of 15 April 1978, so that as from the latter date only the provisions of Article 1 of the Royal Decree No 57 of 20 December 1934 apply to spirits imported both directly and indirectly.

14 On the one hand, it is possible for a purchaser of that product in an intermediate Member State to obtain a retrospective certificate in respect of a part-consignment intended for re-export to a third Member State, on provision of documentary evidence to the competent authorities in the United Kingdom.

15 On the other hand, any purchaser may obtain a certificate directly from HM Customs and Excise without going through the direct importer.

16 The Belgian Government has confirmed that in the latter case such a certi­ ficate would be accepted by the competent Belgian authorities.

17 The Government of the United Kingdom has nevertheless stated that the above-mentioned arrangements cannot dispose of the difficulty with regard to Scotch whisky imported in bulk into a Member State, then brought to the proper strength by dilution and bottled prior to transit to another Member State.

Procedure prior to commencement of legal proceedings

18 By letter dated 20 March 1974 the Commission expressed the opinion to the Belgian Government that Article 1 of the Royal Decree of 20 December 1934 was likely to make imports of spirits from Member States other than

23 Since there was no answer to that formal request the Commission delivered a reasoned opinion dated 8 December 1976 under Article 169 of the Treaty, which was notified to the Belgian Government on 16 December 1976, inviting it to take the requisite measures to comply with the said opinion within a period of a month.

24 On 8 December 1976 the Belgian Government replied to the letter containing the formal request stating that the problem would soon be resolved by the forthcoming publication of an Arrêté Ministériel, the text of which it sent to the Commission, being the above-mentioned Arrêté Ministériel of 2 December 1976.

COMMISSION v BELGIUM

25 It also stated that the repeal of the provisions of the Royal Decree No 57 of 20 December 1934 on spirits was provided for in a draft law concerning the control of foodstuffs and other products, the discussion of which in Par­ liament was almost concluded.

Admissibility

26 The Kingdom of Belgium states that having regard to the wording of the conclusions in the application, the action relates to the Arrêté Ministériel of 2 December 1976 and not to the Royal Decree No 57 of 20 December 1934.

32 In view of the above-mentioned circumstances it is right to consider the conclusions of the Commission as referring not only to the Arrêté Ministériel of 2 December 1976 but also to the Royal Decree No 57.

33 Repeal of the Arrêté Ministériel after the action was brought has therefore not deprived the latter of its purpose.

34 It therefore follows that the action is admissible.

Substance

35 It should be recalled that the provisions of Article 1 of the said Royal Decree were at the root of the reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Premiere Instance of Brussels in Case 8/74 Procureur du Roi v Benoît and Gustave Dassonville, which asked whether a national provision prohibiting the import of goods bearing a designation of origin where such goods are not accompanied by an official document issued by the government of the exporting country certifying their right to such designation constitutes a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction within the meaning of Article 30 of the Treaty.

36 In its judgment of 11 July 1974 given in that case ([1974] ECR 837) the Court ruled:

40 On the other hand, the Commission is not asking the Court to settle the question whether the Arrêté Ministériel which has now been repealed gave rise to such discrimination or whether in refraining from incorporating into laws or regulations the liberalizing measures provided for inter alia in the above-mentioned administrative circulars the Kingdom of Belgium failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the Treaty.

41 Confining consideration to the question which the Commission has brought before the Court, it is not possible to say that to check the authenticity of a product bearing a designation of origin by the expedient of examining certi­ ficates of origin issued in the producer Member State constitutes an unreasonable measure in relation to the objective of guaranteeing the authenticity of the product.

JUDGMENT OF 16. 5. 1979 — CASE 2/78

42 In this respect it is appropriate to observe that a similar system has been adopted in various Community regulations as a means of proving the authenticity of certain products such as Bourbon whisky, port, Madeira, sherry, Setubal muscatel and Tokay and wines, juices and grape musts imported into the Community from third countries and that the Belgian system, as a method of control, has not been challenged by the Commission in so far as it applies to spirits imported directly into Belgium from the producer Member State.

43 Further, at least as regards Scotch whisky, according to information supplied to the Court by the Belgian Government and the Government of the United Kingdom, the requisite certificates are available not only to importers importing spirits directly into Belgium from the producer Member State but also to traders wishing to import such products from an intermediate Member State, as a result of the above-mentioned liberalizing administrative measures adopted both by the Belgian Government and by the Government of the United Kingdom.

48 It is necessary, however, to emphasize that the Kingdom of Belgium has a duty to ensure, seeking if necessary in this respect the assistance of the Commission, that traders wishing to import into Belgium spirits bearing a designation of origin duly adopted by the Belgian Government and in free circulation in a regular manner in a Member State other than that of origin are able to effect such imports and are not placed at a disadvantage in relation to direct importers, save in so far as appears reasonable and strictly necessary to ensure the authenticity of those products.

Costs

49 Under Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party shall be ordered to pay the costs if they have been asked for in the successful party's pleading. Since the Commission has failed in its submissions it must be ordered to pay the costs, save those caused by the interventions, in respect of which the Commission and the interveners shall each pay their own costs since the interveners have not asked for costs.

On those grounds;

THE COURT

hereby:

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 16 May 1979.

A. Van Houtte H. Kutscher

Registrar President

OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL REISCHL DELIVERED ON 20 MARCH 1979 1

Mr President, sale, have possession of or transport for Members of the Court, the purposes of sale or delivery, spirits bearing a designation of origin duly The case in which I am giving my adopted by the Belgian Government opinion today is closely connected with when such spirits are not accompanied the judgment of the Court of 11 July by an official document certifying their 1974 in Case 8/74 Procureur du Roi v right to such designation." Benoît and Gustave Dassonville [1974] 1 ECR 837. Those proceedings for a pre­ liminary ruling were concerned with In the first proceedings the Tribunal de Article 1 of the Royal Decree No 57 of Premier Instance of Brussels referred to 20 December 1934 on the protection of the Court for a preliminary ruling the designations of origin of spirits question whether a national provision (Moniteur Belge of 4 January 1935) and prohibiting the importation of goods this is also the subject-matter of the bearing a designation of origin where present proceedings for infringement of such goods are not accompanied by an the Treaty. The wording of the article is official document issued by the exporting as follows: country certifying their right to such designation is to be considered as a "It is prohibited, on pain of penal quantitative restriction or a measure sanctions, to import, sell, display for having equivalent effect within the 1 — Translated from the German.