C-244/78

on the interpretation of certain provisions in Regulation No 1411/71 of the Council of 29 June 1971 (Official Journal, English Special Edition, 1971, (II), p. 412), as amended by Council Regulation, No 566/76 of 15 March 1976 (Official Journal 1976, L 67, p. 23) regarding imports into the United Kingdom of standardized whole milk, UHT treated, coming from France,

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, G. Bosco, A. Touffait and T. Koopmans, Judges,

Advocate General: H. Mayras Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Regulation No 1411/71 of the Council non-standardized whole milk shall of 29 June 1971 (Official Journal, not prohibit, without prejudice to English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. requirements for the protection of 412), adopted as part of that organi­ public health: zation, lists in Article 3 (1) (a) and (b) the products to which it applies, that is (a) the preparation within its to say "milk" and "drinking milk", the territory of standardized whole latter including "raw milk", "whole milk for sale within the territory milk", "semi-skimmed milk" and of another Member State which "skimmed milk". The second indent of has opted for the latter formula; subparagraph (b) of that provision, amended and supplemented by Council (b) the marketing within its territory Regulation No 566/76 of 15 March of standardized whole milk 1976 (Official Journal 1976, L 67, p. 23) coming from another Member provides that the term "whole milk" State, when the fat content of within the meaning of these rules such milk is not less than a comprises two formulae: "standardized guideline figure fixed by the whole milk" and "non-standardized Council acting on a proposal whole milk". from the Commission in accordance with the voting Article 1 of Regulation No 566/76 procedure laid down in Article shows that "standardized" whole milk 43 (2) of the Treaty. differs from "non-standardized" whole milk in that the fat content of the first 7. The guideline figure in paragraph 6 (at least 3 . 50 %) may be constituted by (b) shall be fixed by 1 January of additives, whereas that of the second (at each year for the following milk least 3 % must not be the result of any year. However, it shall be fixed in alteration whatsoever since the milking 1976 for the period from 1 October stage. Ireland and the United Kingdom 1976 until the end of the 1976/77 opted for the formula of non-stan­ milk year. dardized whole milk. The guideline figure shall be fixed In addition, Article 3 of Regulation No for each Member State which opts for the formula of non-standardized 1411/71, as amended by Regulation No 566/76, makes the following provisions whole milk; it shall be the weighted for "whole milk", standardized or non- average fat content of the whole standardized, in paragraphs (5) to (7): milk produced and marketed in the Member State in question during the previous year." "5. With regard to whole milk, Member States shall apply within their territories, as from 1 October 1976 The guideline figure referred to in at the latest, one of the two paragraph (6) (b) above, for the milk formulae set forth in the second year 1978/1979, is 3.78% for the indent of paragraph 1 (b). They shall United Kingdom, according to Article 1 decide on the formula for their of Council Regulation No 300/78 of territory by 1 July 1976 and shall 13 February 1978 (Official Journal 1978, inform the Commission accordingly L 45, p. 5). on or before that date.

amended by Regulation No 566/76, to packaging of milk, in particular Regu­ the United Kingdom. lation 30 (2) of Statutory Instrument No 277 of 17 February 1959 concerning milk and milk products (The Milk and Dairies (General) Regulations, 1959) amended 2. The Union Laitière Normande by Statutory Instrument No 1033 of 16 (hereinafter referred to as "the U.L.N.") June 1977 (The Milk (Special which was incorporated under French Designation) Regulations 1977). law in the form of a group of agri­ cultural co-operatives, made a contract on 1 June 1978 with French Dairy A letter of 20 July 1978 from the Farmers Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and "F.D.F."), a company incorporated Food informed the company that stan­ under English law, for supplies of stan­ dardized whole milk with a fat content dardized whole milk with a fat content of 3.78% can only be imported and higher than 3.78 %, treated by the marketed in the United Kingdom if it is process known as ultra-high temperature there given ultra-high temperature (UHT) treatment and produced in treatment and packaged on registered France. premises. The Ministry added that the information it was giving only dealt with regulations which directly impinged on Under the terms of the contract F.D.F. imported milk, and that there were other agreed to buy, for collection before regulations applicable to "domestic" 30 September 1978, 300 000 litres of sales of milk, such as the Milk (Great packaged UHT milk, in brick-shaped Britain) Order 1977, as amended, and packs of one litre, in cartons of 12 packs. the 1963 weights and measures provisions (Weights and Measures Act 1963) which specified the permitted sizes of retail containers. A first consignment of 144 cartons was sent by the U.L.N, on 12 June 1978, but was returned by F.D.F. on the same day Not having a dealer's licence, F.D.F. on the ground that an import licence decided according to a letter dated from the British Ministry of Agriculture 12 September 1978 to take steps to was required to import the goods into terminate the contract. the United Kingdom, by virtue of Article 5 (1) of the Importation of Carcases and Animal Products Order 1972 of 29 February 1972 (made under the The U.L.N, considered the arguments Diseases of Animals Act 1950). Later, the presented by F.D.F. invalid and brought U.L.N, made a second delivery of pre­ an action against it, by a writ issued on packed UHT milk, which could be 27 September 1978, before the Tribunal imported into the United Kingdom de Commerce, Paris, for non-per­ under a licence granted to F.D.F. on 4 formance of the contract in question. August 1978. The latter found they were The U.L.N, based its action mainly on unable to market the milk, however, Article 30 of the Treaty and on the because the competent British provisions of Council Regulation No 566/76. administrative authority refused to grant the dealer's licence required for that purpose, on the ground that the imported product did not comply with In a judgment of 16 October 1978, the the British legislation on treatment and Tribunal de Commerce, Paris, decided to

stay the proceedings and refer to the Member State compatible with the Court, under Article 177 of the EEC terms of Article 3 (6) of Regulation Treaty, the following questions for a No 1411/71 (as enacted by Article 2 preliminary ruling: of Council Regulation No 566/76), which stipulates requirements of public health as the only reservation I. Can Article 3 (6) of Regulation No in relation to intra-Community trade? 1411/71 (as enacted by Article 2 of Council Regulation No 566/76 of 15 March 1976), which provides that 5. Does the combined effect of the British national measures based on a Member State that opts for the formula of non-standardized whole reasons of protection of health and on milk shall not prohibit, without the application of the national weights prejudice to requirements for the and measures legislation constitute a protection of public health, ... the means of arbitrary discrimination or a marketing within its territory of stan­ disguised restriction on trade between dardized whole milk coming from Member States such as are prohibited another Member State, when the fat by Article 36 of the Treaty? content of such milk is not less than a guideline figure fixed by the Council ..., be interpreted, as the authorities 3. A certified copy of this judgment of the United Kingdom appear to do, was received at the Court Registry on 6 November 1978. as meaning that milk thus imported may be marketed only for purposes other than human consumption? The Union Laitière Normande, represented by Mr Funck-Brentano, Advocate at the Cour de Paris, the 2. Does the reservation concerning the protection of public health contained Government of the French Republic, in Article 3 (6) of Regulation No represented by its Agent, Guy de 1411/71 (as enacted by Article 2 of Lacharrière, Legal Adviser at the Regulation No 566/76) justify British Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the national legislation requiring the Government of the United Kingdom, reprocessing and repackaging of represented by W. H. Godwin, Treasury UHT milk produced and packaged in Solicitor's Office, and by Peter Scott and another Member State according to P. G. Langdon-Davies, and the Com­ methods which are identical to those mission of the European Communities, used in the United Kingdom and have represented by its Legal Advisers, Etienne Lasnet and Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen, been approved by the national submitted their written observations administrative authorities in that under Article 20 of the Protocol on the Member State? Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC. 3. If the second question is answered in the negative, does the aforementioned Upon hearing the report of the Judge- British national legislation constitute a Rapporteur and the views of the measure having an effect equivalent to Advocate General, the Court opened the a restrictive measure prohibited by the oral procedure, after inviting the French Treaty? Government, the Government of the United Kingdom, the Union Laitière 4. Is the application of British weights Normande and the Commission of the and measures legislation to milk European Communities to give certain produced and packaged in another written explanations.

1. an import licence and a dealer's 2. (a) In view of the geographical licence must be obtained; position of the United Kingdom, the requirement that imports be made in bulk compels continental operators to 2. the standardized whole milk must be transport standardized whole milk in imported in bulk in order that it may special containers, which obviously be reprocessed and repackaged in complicates delivery of this product, as it Great Britain on premises registered can only be effected by sea. for the purpose; Indeed, any measure which subjects imports of foreign products to conditions 3. products must be packaged in pint different from, or more difficult to containers. satisfy than, those required for national products amounts to a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction according to Commission 1. To import standardized whole milk Directive No 70/50 of 22 December into Great Britain a special licence is 1969. required under Article 5 (1) of the Importation of Carcases and Animal Products Order 1972. Whether or not (b) The obligation imposed on the product can be put on the market importers to carry out reprocessing and depends then on the grant of a dealer's repackaging of the product in Great licence, according to Regulation 30 (2) Britain on premises registered for the of Statutory Instrument No 277 on milk, purpose must be considered as a measure of 17 February 1959, supplemented by having an effect equivalent to a Statutory Instrument No 1033 of 16 June quantitative restriction, since it makes it 1977. impossible to market in Great Britain milk imported from another Member State, for the reprocessing and repack­ The case-law of the Court of Justice aging can only be carried out in British shows quite definitely that the territory on premises specially registered requirement of these two licences is for the purpose by local authorities, contrary to the principle of the free whose competence has certain territorial movement of goods. limits.

That is not so in the case of the British regulations, the provisions of which are That article authorizes Member States in manifestly disproportionate to the fact to derogate from the rules purpose they are actually meant to concerning the free movement of goods achieve. for, among other reasons, the protection of health and life of humans and animals, provided that the measures adopted do not constitute a means of In fact they require subsequent heat arbitrary discrimination or a disguised treatment for whole milk which has restriction on trade between Member already been given ultra-high States. temperature treatment prior to expor­ tation from France, with apparatus made and licensed, moreover, in the United Because it makes an exception to one of Kingdom, and which is thus free of all contamination. In addition, this milk was the fundamental principles of the Common Market, Article 36 must be found on analysis by the British interpreted and applied strictly. The laboratory to satisfy the requirements of derogations from the free movement of the British legislation. goods for which it provides are allowed solely to the extent to which they prove to be indispensable for the protection of consumers. In the present instance, the British national provisions stipulating that stan­ dardized whole milk cannot be marketed until it has been reprocessed and Human health and life must obviously be repackaged in Great Britain on premises a primary concern of the national auth­ registered for that purpose constitute not orities, and it is for the Member States to merely a measure having an effect decide on the domestic measures which equivalent to a quantitative restriction should be taken to give full effect to this prohibited by the Treaty, but also a concern within the limits imposed by the means of arbitrary discrimination and a Treaty; but Member States may not disguised restriction on trade between adopt measures preventing imports Member States. which, but for such measures, would be allowed, including those which make importation more difficult or bur­ densome than marketing the national 3. Lastly, the obligation to market the product. imported milk in containers holding a pint or a multiple or sub-multiple thereof makes it more difficult, both now and in According to the case-law of the Court the future, to import into Great Britain of Justice, certain measures adopted by and is therefore a typical example of a States only escape the prohibition in measure having equivalent effect pro­ Articles 30 to 34 of the Treaty if they hibited by Community law.

Although Council Directive No 71/354 having an equivalent effect to a of 18 October 1971 (Official Journal, quantitative restriction, which must not English Special Edition 1971 (III), p. be applied to a product made up in 878) on the approximation of the laws of another Member State in which the units the Member States relating to units of of measurement in force already comply measurement, amended by Directive No with the provisions in the Community 76/770 of 27 July 1976 (Official Journal directives on harmonization. 1976, L 262, p.' 204) authorizes Great Britain to use the traditional British measures for packaging its national products until 31 December 1979, it cannot impose such measures on Next, the U.L.N. notes that the products coming from other Member combination of British national measures States which already comply with the referred to led the court making the directives on harmonization mentioned reference to the Court of Justice to ask above. whether Article 2 (6) of Regulation No 566/76 should be interpreted as auth­ orizing the marketing in Great Britain of standardized whole milk only for This interpretation is borne out by purposes other than human consumption. Article 5 of Council Directive No 75/106 dated 19 December 1974 (Official Journal 1975, L 42, p. 1) relating to the making-up by volume of certain prepackaged liquids, which In order to reply to this question, it is clearly states that "Member States may necessary to examine the Community not refuse, prohibit or restrict the placing text in the light of its actual scope and on the market of prepackages which effectiveness. Now, the effect of this satisfy the requirements ... laid down in regulation is to allow the marketing of this directive for reasons concerning the standardized whole milk in a Member volume of the contents ...". State which has opted for the formula of non-standardized whole milk, with no other requirement than compliance with the guideline figure for the fat content It would be unjust to force the U.L.N. to fixed for that country, and protection of sell in terms of the pint in order to public health. The true purpose of the comply with the British national weights regulation is thus to encourage the and measures legislation, for the burden development of the market in milk imposed on it would be excessive seeing between Member States. that from 1 January 1980 Great Britain will have to comply with the harmo­ nization directives mentioned above, and that it would therefore be unreasonable to create in the meantime a special The United Kingdom did not mention packaging line which could not possibly the requirements, which it now advances pay for itself in such a short time. in Statutory Instrument 1976 No 1885 giving effect to Regulation No 566/76. A purely national regime for milk producers in the United Kingdom can­ Thus the obligation to sell by the pint not be applied to Common Market should be considered as a measure operators.

The United Kingdom legislation which affects the importation of the plaintiff company's milk falls under three Moreover, this milk had all the headings: guarantees as to quality necessary for the protection of public health. For that purpose, the United Kingdom grants import licences only on condition that — protection of animal health; the heat treatment given to UHT milk meets the British standards, which are higher than the French ones. France agreed to comply with those standards. Specific tests were carried out in the — protection of human health; processing plants and a veterinary certi­ ficate was issued certifying that the conditions required by British regulations had been met. — regulation of quantities.

JUDGMENT OF 12. 7. 1979 — CASE 244/78

The legislation for the protection of human health applies equally to imported The result of this legislation is that no and to home-produced milk. local authority has power to grant a licence to sell milk for human consumption as "ultra-heat treated" if :

Regulation 30 (2) of the Milk and Dairies (General) Regulations, 1959, as — the milk has not been treated in the amended by Regulation 2 of the Milk manner described in Pan IV of and Dairies (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1977 provides that, with Schedule 2 to the 1977 Regulations, and exceptions immaterial to this case, every bottle or carton in which it is intended to deliver milk to consumers must be filled and closed on registered premises. Registered premises means dairies which — the treatment, filling and closing of have been inspected and registered under the canons has not been carried out Part III of the above-mentioned 1959 on registered premises.

UNION LAITIÈRE NORMANDE v FRENCH DAIRY FARMERS

The requirements of the British public health legislation that the milk, once Lastly, the weights and measures imported, should be treated and packed legislation at present in force in the in the required manner, are not measures United Kingdom (namely the Weights having an effect equivalent to and Measures Act 1963) provides that quantitative restrictions on imports under

JUDGMENT OF 12. 7. 1979 — CASE 244/78

Article 30. Even if they were, they would legislation on this matter and respectfully be justified under Article 36 on the asks the Court to answer the second grounds of protecting the health and life question in the affirmative. of humans.

This being so, it is in the submission of Therefore, until appropriate Community the United Kingdom impossible to measures are adopted, the United interpret Article 3 (6) of Regulation No Kingdom Government considers it 1411/71 as requiring the United necessary to maintain in force its own Kingdom to permit milk to be sold in a

UNION LAITIERE NORMANDE v FRENCH DAIRY FARMERS

pre-packed quantity which is, for the harmonization of the national legal time being, not required under systems on the protection of human and Community law. animal health has yet to be achieved. For this reason the national legislation remains in force as long as there are no Accordingly, the fourth question should binding Community rules and subject, of be answered in the affirmative, which course, to the application of the rules of means that the fifth question should be the Treaty. answered in the negative.

That does not imply, however, that the Member States must automatically allow It does not, however, contain any milk which meets the guideline figure provisions concerning the production regarding fat content so fixed to be and marketing of milk and milk imported. The provision in question products. expressly states that the national requirements for the protection of public health are still to apply. In spite of the proposals on the subject submitted to it by the Commission, to date the Council has adopted neither In the second and third questions the general rules concerning the quality and court making the reference asks whether marketing of milk, nor regulations national legislation requiring the concerning health problems in the reprocessing and repackaging of UHT production and marketing of heat- milk produced and packaged in another treated milk. Member State constitutes measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions and whether, if The Community legislation on the that is so, the latter, although prohibited quality and marketing of drinking milk is by Community law, may be justified therefore incomplete, the more so since under Article 36 of the Treaty.

JUDGMENT OF 12. 7. 1979 — CASE 244/70

UNION LAITIÈRE NORMANDE v FRENCH DAIRY FARMERS

identical to those required by the If the British regulations are really based importing country, afford hygiene on considerations relating to health, it is guarantees as to protection from hard to see why the United Kingdom infectious germs which are in large authorities allow milk to be imported in measure equivalent to those of the bulk prior to being given UHT treatment importing country. This question was not in Britain, a fortiori, why they allow pre­ expressly asked by the court making the packaged cream — high-temperature reference but it would be useful to treated or even fresh — to be imported consider it in view of its importance. without requiring that product to be Obviously it is difficult to define the reprocessed and repackaged. Certainly equivalent guarantees, because in the no less a risk of contamination by absence of harmonization the concepts infectious diseases is present in these of health control vary from one country products than in the UHT milk, if the to another. But it does appear that the latter does in fact present such risks. treatment of milk is in large measure similar from one Member State to another and has the same essential effect; that is to say, the destruction of infectious germs which pose a threat to human and animal health.

JUDGMENT OF 12. 7. 1979 — CASE 244/78

The British legislation requires imported (1) Article 3 (6) of Regulation No milk to be prepackaged in quantities of 1411/71 of the Council of 29 June 1971, one third of a pint, half a pint or as amended by Regulation No 566/76 multiples of half a pint, which compels should be interpreted as applying only to importers to repackage all milk pre­ milk intended for human consumption. packaged for example in one-litre containers.

UNION LAITIÈRE NORMANDE v FRENCH DAIRY FARMERS

making-up by volume of certain pre­ III — Oral procedure packaged liquids such as UHT milk. Article 7 (2) of the directive issued by the Council on 19 December 1974 on The Union Laitière Normande, the approximation of the laws of the represented by Mr Funck-Brentano, Member States relating to the making-up Advocate at the Cour de Paris, the by volume of certain pre-packaged Government of the United Kingdom, liquids authorizes certain Member States, represented by Mr Scott, and the including the United Kingdom, to defer Commission of the European Com­ implementation of the directive until 31 munities, represented by its Legal December 1979 at the latest, subject to Advisers, Mr Lasnet and Mr Hoff- the standstill imposed by the third Nielsen, submitted oral observations at paragraph of the same article. the hearing on 31 May 1979.

(5) The reply to the preceding questions makes it unnecessary to reply The Advocate General delivered his to this question. opinion at the hearing on 14 June 1979.

Decision

1 In a judgment of 16 October 1978, received by the Court on 6 November 1978, the Tribunal de Commerce, Paris, referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty some questions concerning the interpretation of certain provisions of Council Regulation No 566/76 of 15 March 1976 (Official Journal 1976, L 67, p. 23) amending Regulation (EEC) No 1411/71 as regards the fat content of whole milk, and of Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty.

2 These questions arose in the course of an action between a group of agri­ cultural co-operatives incorporated under French law and its English sub­ sidiary concerning the performance, on 30 September 1978, of a contract to supply standardized whole milk produced in France and exported to the United Kingdom. The milk in question had a fat content of 3.78 %, had been given ultra-high temperature (UHT) treatment, and was packaged in one-litre containers.

2. Does the reservation concerning the protection of public health contained in Article 3 (6) of Regulation No 1411/71 (as enacted by Article 2 of Regulation No 566/76) justify British national legislation requiring the reprocessing and repackaging of UHT milk produced and packaged in another Member State according to methods which are identical to those used in the United Kingdom and have been approved by the national administrative authorities in that Member State?

3. If the second question is answered in the negative, does the aforementioned British national legislation constitute a measure having an effect equivalent to a restrictive measure prohibited by the Treaty?

UNION LAITIÈRE NORMANDE v FRENCH DAIRY FARMER

4. Is the application of British weights and measures legislation to milk produced and packaged in another Member State compatible with the terms of Article 3 (6) of Regulation No 1411/71 (as enacted by Article 2 of Council Regulation No 566/76), which stipulates requirements of public health as the only reservation in relation to intra-Community trade?

5. Does the combined effect of the British national measures based on reasons of protection of health and on the application of the national weights and measures legislation constitute a means of arbitrary dis­ crimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States such as are prohibited by Article 36 of the Treaty?"

5 Before proceeding to examine the questions which have been referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling, it should be noted that, whilst Article 177 of the Treaty does not permit the Court to evaluate the grounds for making the reference, the need to afford a helpful interpretation of Community law makes it essential to define the legal context in which the interpretation requested should be placed.

9 That being so, the fourth question should be answered first and the others examined only if it appears that the British national legislation concerning the packaging of pre-packed milk could not have applied in this case to the marketing in England of the product under discussion.

10 In order to encourage the approximation of the national laws concerning weights and measures in the context of Article 100 of the EEC Treaty, the Council, on the basis of Directive No 71/316 of 26 July 1971 (Official Journal 1971, L 207, p. 1) and Directive No 71/354 of 18 October 1971 (Official Journal 1971, L 243, p. 29), later amended by the Act of Accession, adopted Directive No 75/106 of 19 December 1974 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making-up by volume of certain pre-packaged liquids (Official Journal 1975, L 42, p. 1), the provisions of which are, by virtue of point 7 of Annex III, applicable equally to milk when sold by volume.

11 The object of this directive, according to the first recital in the preamble, is to harmonize "the conditions of presentation for sale of liquids in pre­ packages", on the ground that these conditions are, in most of the Member States, "the subject of mandatory regulations which differ from one Member State to another, thereby hindering trade in such pre-packages".

UNION LAITIÈRE NORMANDE v FRENCH DAIRY FARMER

12 For those reasons the directive determines the conditions which pre-packages containing the products listed in Annex III, such as milk, measured by volume for the purpose of sale "in individual quantities of between 0.05 litre and five litres inclusive" must satisfy before they may be marketed within the Community, and provides in Article 5 that "Member States may not refuse, prohibit or restrict the placing on the market of pre-packages which satisfy the requirements and tests laid down in this directive for reasons concerning the volume of the contents ...".

of 19 December 1974 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making-up by volume of certain pre-packaged liquids was, by Article 7 (2) thereof, deferred in the case of the United Kingdom until 31 December 1979 at the latest, the retention by that Member State of the provisions of the Weights and Measures Act 1963 was not, at the date of the imports in question, prohibited by the rules of Community law and could therefore at that date be applied to the marketing in England of pre­ packaged milk from another Member State, made up in containers of a capacity of one litre.

17 Since the reply to the fourth question makes it unnecessary to examine the other questions referred by the national court for a preliminary ruling, a decision on them is not required.

Costs

18 The costs incurred by the Government of the French Republic, the Government of the United Kingdom and the Commission of the European Communities, which submitted observations to the Court are not recoverable. As the proceedings are, in 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, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.

On those grounds,

THE COURT,

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 12 July 1979.

A. Van Houtte H.Kutscher

Registrar President

OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL MAYRAS DELIVERED ON 14 JUNE 1979<apnote>1</apnote>

Mr President, three quarter pints) of ultra-heat treated Members of the Court, standardized whole milk within the meaning of Article 2 (6) of Council I — It may be useful to recall the facts Regulation No 566/76, consigned to its at the origin of this reference for a pre­ London subsidiary, French Dairy liminary ruling by the Tribunal de Farmers. The consignment was turned Commerce, Paris. back on the same day on the ground that no import licence had been issued by the On 12 June 1978 the Union Laitière United Kingdom Ministry of Agriculture. Normande, the plaintiff in the main action, dispatched to the United Later the plaintiff sought and was Kingdom by lorry a pallet of 72 cartons granted, on 1 August 1978, such an (each carton containing 12 brick-shaped import licence, which was valid until 31 packs of one litre, that is to say, one and August. It was emphasized, however,

I — Translated from the French.