C-130/93

3. Lamaire is a company which trades in potatoes, with a substantial export business. 2. The basis for the rules at issue is the Law In the course of its business, Lamaire paid of 27 December 1938, subsequently amended with respect to the 1986 and 1987 reference by the Law of 11 April 1983, which estab­ periods the contributions relating to potato lished the Nationale Dienst voor Afzet van exports, provided for by Article 4(4) of the Land-en Tuinbouwprodukten — NDAĽTP Royal Decree of 15 May 1986. It refused to (National Board for the Sale of Agricultural pay the contribution for the 1988 reference and Horticultural Products) ('the National period. Board') whose task is to promote the sale at home and abroad of agricultural, horticul­ tural and fishery products. Under Arti­ cle 4(c) of that law, the National Board may levy a compulsory contribution in respect of each product or group of products on natu­ Lamaire subsequently brought legal proceed­ ral and legal persons who produce, process, ings, claiming that the contribution itself is transport, sell or market agricultural, horti­ incompatible with Articles 9 and 12 of the cultural or fishery products. Treaty and, accordingly, seeking reimburse­ ment of the contributions paid. The court of first instance dismissed the case.

Pursuant to that provision, the Belgian authorities introduced — by Royal Decree of 15 May 1986, as amended by Royal 4. The appellate court recognized the prohi­ bition on charges having equivalent effect to import and export duties, enshrined in Arti­ * Original language: Italian. cles 9 and 12 of the Treaty, as having direct

effect. O n that basis it decided to stay the portion to that service 4 or, in certain circum- proceedings and to ask the Court whether stances, if it is levied on account of inspec- Articles 9 and 12 of the Treaty preclude the tions carried out for the purpose of fulfilling levying of a compulsory contribution on the obligations imposed by Community law. 5 export of an agricultural product, such as the contribution of BFR 2 per 100 kg of potatoes exported, provided for by Article 4(4) of the Royal Decree of 15 May 1986 as amended by the Royal Decree of 14 July 1987. 6. In the present case, it should first be pointed out that it is common ground that the disputed contribution is a pecuniary charge which has been imposed unilaterally by one Member State in respect of a specific product by reason of the fact that it has been 5. In that connection, it should first of all be exported. Moreover, it follows from the recalled that, as the Court has consistently abovementioned judgment in Sociaal Fonds held, the prohibition on charges having Diamantarbeiders that the fact that a com- equivalent effect to customs duties on pulsory contribution charged on the impor- imports and exports encompasses any pecu- tation or exportation of goods was levied not niary charge, however small and whatever its on behalf of the State but on behalf of designation and mode of application, which another body separate from the State is quite is imposed unilaterally on domestic or for- immaterial for the purposes of deciding eign goods by reason of the fact that they whether such a contribution should be clas- cross a frontier, even if such a charge is not sified as a charge having equivalent effect imposed for the benefit of the State, is not within the meaning of Articles 9 and 12 of discriminatory or protective in effect or if the Treaty. Thus the compulsory contribu- the product on which the charge is imposed tion in respect of the exportation of potatoes, is not in competition with any domestic levied on behalf of the National Board pur- product. * suant to Anicie 4(4) of the Belgian Royal Decree of 15 May 1986, must be regarded as a charge having equivalent effect to a cus- toms duty on exports and as such prohibited by Articles 9 and 12 of the Treaty.

inspections carried out in order to fulfil obli- 8. One final point remains to be made. The gations imposed by Community law. It is objective of Articles 9 and 12 of the Treaty is also not disputed that the contribution is solely to prohibit charges having equivalent applied only to exports of the product in effect to customs duties with respect to trade question and thus does not relate to a general 'between Member States', from which it fol- system of internal dues applied systemati- lows that those provisions do not concern cally and in accordance with the same crite- the importation (or the exportation) of prod- ria, irrespective of the origin, exporting ucts coming from (or destined for) non- country or destination of the goods subject member countries. 7 It follows that Articles 9 to it. Lastly, it is apparent from the order for and 12 of the Treaty do not preclude the reference and from the observations submit- imposition of a compulsory contribution, ted to the Court that the purpose of the con- such as the contribution at issue, in so far as tribution is to finance generally the National it is levied on products exported to non- Board's promotion of sales and that the member countries and not to other Member charge does not therefore represent consider- States. In the present case, it is for the ation for a 'specific or individual benefit pro- national court to ascertain to what extent vided to the trader', that is to say, consider- Lamaire's exports were destined for other ation for a 'specific service actually and Member States or to non-member countries, individually rendered to the trader, in an and thus to establish to what extent Lamaire amount proportionate to that service'. 6 is liable to pay the contribution.