C-98/86
ECLI:EU:C:1986:425
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61986CC0098
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
MINISTÈRE PUBLIC v MATHOT
OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL MISCHO delivered on 12 November 1986 *
Mr President, principle of Community law prohibit Members of the Court, Member States from imposing, in regard to the labelling of butter produced in that Member State, rules which are more strict The tribunal de première instance [Court of than those applying to imported butter?' First Instance], Dinant, has referred the following question to the Court in criminal proceedings brought before that court by the ministère public against a trader in Since the Court has already expressed its butter, Arthur Mathot: view on problems of this type on several occasions, including one quite recently, I can restrict myself to three brief obser vations which I can make immediately. 'Is the requirement imposed only on Belgian processors, and not on their competitors from other Member States, to indicate their name and address on the packaging of 1. Article 30 is not infringed by a national butter compatible with Article 30 of the measure which has no restrictive effect on EEC Treaty?' imports.
Thus formulated, the question put to the Very recently, in the judgment of 23 Court is in effect whether a provision of October 1986 in Case 355/85 Commissaire national law is compatible with Community de police de Thouars v Michel Cognet [1986] law. ECR 3231, the Court had occasion to rule on this point. In that judgment the Court ruled, in regard to national legislation However, in the context of a reference for a giving rise to a difference of treatment preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the according to whether books were placed EEC Treaty, the Court only has jurisdiction directly on the market in the Member State to interpret the Treaty or to give a ruling on in which they were published and printed or the validity and interpretation of acts of the were reimported after previously being institutions of the Community. exported to another Member State (the selling prices of the former being fixed and those of the latter being unrestricted), that 'Article 30 of the Treaty does not forbid It is however possible to reformulate the such a difference of treatment. The purpose question in such a way as to bring it within of that provision is to eliminate obstacles to the scope of Article 177. That could be done as follows: the importation of goods and not to ensure that goods of national origin always enjoy the same treatment as imported or reim ported goods. The absence of restriction as 'Does Article 30 of the EEC Treaty, any regards the selling price of reimported other provision of that Treaty or a general books does not prejudice the sale of such
* Translated from the French.
OPINION OF MR MISCHO — CASE 98 / 86
books. A difference in treatment between Article 7, even if they affect the competi goods which is not capable of restricting tiveness of traders subject to them. imports or of prejudicing the marketing of imported or reimported goods does not fall Furthermore, as the Court stated in its within the prohibition contained in Article judgment of 3 July 1979 in Joined Cases 30.' 185 to 204/78 van Dam [1979] ECR 2361, 'it cannot be held contrary to the principle of non-discrimination to apply national 2. No other provision of the Treaty or any legislation ... because other Member States general principle of Community law is allegedly apply less strict rules'. infringed if domestically produced products are treated less favourably than imported products (reverse discrimination) if the The Court confirmed that principle in its measures in question apply to a sector judgments in Smit 1 and Cognet (cited which is not governed by Community rules above). or subject to harmonization of national legislation. In regard to Articles 37 and 95 of the Treaty, the Court has held that: Obviously, the first provision that comes to mind when the question of discrimination "Whether or not a domestic product—-in arises is Article 7 which provides that particular certain potable spirits — is subject 'within the scope of application of this to a commercial monopoly, neither Article Treaty and without prejudice to any special 37 nor Article 95 of the EEC Treaty provisions contained therein, any discrimi prohibits a Member State from imposing on nation on grounds of nationality shall be that domestic product internal taxation in prohibited'. excess of that imposed on similar products 2 imported from other Member States.
However, as the Court has decided on numerous occasions, in particular in its Finally, with regard to the general principle judgment of 30 November 1978 in Case of non-discrimination, I would like to draw 31/78 Bustone v Italian Ministry of Agri- attention to another passage in the culture and Forestry [1978] ECR at p. 2445 judgment in Case 355/85 Driancourt v and its judgment of 14 July 1981 in Case Cognet, in which the Court stated that: 155/80 Oebel [1981] ECR 1993, which I 'As regards the general principle of would like to quote here: non-discrimination, it must be observed that Community law does not apply to treatment which works to the detriment of national 'The principle of non-discrimination products as compared with imported contained in Article 7 is not infringed by products or to the detriment of retailers who sell national products as compared with rules which are applicable not on the basis retailers who sell imported products and of the nationality of traders, but on the basis which is put into effect by a Member State of their location'. in a sector which is not subject to
1 — Judgment of 25 January 1983 in Case 126/82 Smit v It follows that national rules which do not Commissie Grensoverschrijdend Beroepsgœderenvervoer distinguish, whether directly or indirectly, [1983] ECR 92. 2 — Judgment of 13 March 1979 in Case 86/78 Peureux v between persons subject to them on the Services fiscaux Je la Haute-Saône et du territoire de Belfort basis of their nationality are not contrary to [1979] ECR 897 at p. 915, operative part.
MINISTÈRE PUBLIC v MATHOT
Community rules or in relation to which (6) the name or business name and address there has been no harmonization of national of the manufacturer or packager, or of laws' (paragraph 11). a seller established within the Community'. 3. In the third place, I would like to mention, for what it's worth, that a problem If Directive 79/112 has been correctly of reverse discrimination can no longer arise transposed in Belgium, and that is in regard to the labelling of butter because something which the Court is not entitled to that question has been the subject of a verify in the context of a reference for a harmonizing measure at Community level. preliminary ruling, neither domestically The measure in question is Council produced butter nor imported butter may be Directive 79/112 of 18 December 1978 on offered for sale in Belgium in a package the approximation of the laws of the indicating only a licence number. Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer. 3 Even if the question of reverse discrimi nation raised by the defendant in the main proceedings does not therefore arise in According to Article 3 of that directive reality, it seems to me that a reply must 'indication of the following particulars alone none the less be given to the very precise shall be compulsory on the labelling of question raised by the national court as to foodstuffs: the scope of Article 30 and attention also drawn to the Court's case-law on reverse discrimination in regard to the free movement of goods.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I propose that the Court reply as follows to the question referred to it by the tribunal de première instance, Dinant:
1. The purpose of Article 30 of the EEC Treaty is to eliminate obstacles to the importation of goods and not to ensure that goods of domestic origin receive in all cases the same treatment as imported goods.
2. The fact that a Member State accords less favourable treatment to domestically produced products than to imported products in a sector not subject to Community rules or to harmonization of national legislation does not come within the scope of Community law.
3 — — Official Journal L 33 of 8 February 1979, p. 1.
OPINION OF MR MISCHO —CASE 98/86
3 The legislation of the Member States concerning the labelling and presentation of foodstuffs has been harmonized by Council Directive 79/112/EEC ot 18 December 1978. The first paragraph of Article 3 (1) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that butter labels must indicate the name or business name and address of the manufacturer or packager or of a seller established within the Community.
That rule applies to foodstuffs regardless of their origin.