C-144/95

1. By judgment of 4 April 1995, the Tribunal premises. The police report of the offence, de Police (Local Criminal Court), Toulouse, which was drawn up on 15 June 1993, was submitted the following question to the forwarded to the Public Prosecutor's Office Court for a preliminary ruling: in Toulouse on 18 June 1993 and was finally notified to Mr Maurin on 22 June 1993. At the hearing before the national court, the accused submitted that the police report was void inasmuch as it had not been signed by the person under investigation. That, in his view, amounted to a breach of the principles enshrined in the European Convention on 'Is the procedure for establishing whether an Human Rights, in particular the principle offence has been committed, as laid down in that the rights of the defence and the adver­ the Law of 1 August 1905 on frauds and fal­ sarial nature of proceedings should be sifications relating to products or services observed. concerning the labelling and presentation of food products, and, more particularly, the fact that a report is not signed by the person concerned by an investigation, compatible with the general principles of law laid down by the Court of Justice, such as observance of the rights of the defence and of the adver­ sarial nature of proceedings?' The order for reference states that the national legislation governing the resolution of the case does not require that a police report be signed by the person concerned. The national court, however, is asking the Court whether such a requirement can be derived from 'the general principles of law laid down by the Court of Justice, such as 2. The facts underlying the main proceed­ observance of the rights of the defence and ings may be quickly summarized. Mr Maurin of the adversarial nature of proceedings'. is being prosecuted for breach of Article 18 of Decree No 84-1147 of 7 December 1984. More specifically, he has been charged with having offered for sale foodstuffs whose use-by date had expired. The relevant French authorities noted this breach in the course of an inspection carried out on his company 3. The Commission, the French Govern­ ment and the United Kingdom argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction to rule on the * Original language: Italian. present request for a preliminary ruling.

Their contention is that the dispute in the ling of all foodstuffs'. The directive pursues main proceedings is one to which Commu­ that objective simply by providing uniform nity law does not apply. The case is there­ criteria for the labelling of foodstuffs. The fore, in their view, governed exclusively by only possible breach of its provisions may national law: the national court is required to therefore lie in the marketing of products apply a sanction provided for under French that are labelled in a manner diverging from legislation for breach of a rule also laid down the prescribed parameters. However, the by that legislation. Therefore, according to directive does not in any way regulate the the view here under consideration, the pre­ situation which has arisen in the main pro­ condition enabling Community law to be ceedings, in which a product, although applied and consequently providing a basis labelled in accordance with Community-law for the jurisdiction of the Court is not satis­ requirements, is offered for sale at a date fied. subsequent to the use-by date indicated on the packaging. The problem in this case is not that of determining whether the prod­ ucts were labelled in a manner consistent with the requirements laid down by the directive, in which case it would be necessary to hold that the facts are indeed governed by Community law. Rather, the issue is how the offering for sale of foodstuffs whose use-by date has expired is penalized: that, however, is not a matter dealt with either by the direc­ tive or by any other provision of Commu­ 4. That is a view which I believe deserves to nity law. The case falls within the purview of be upheld. In the first place, there is no con­ the national legislature. The parties which necting factor between the facts of the case have submitted observations are therefore and the rules of Community law. Directive right to infer that the proceedings instituted 79/112/EEC 1 lays down rules with regard to against Mr Maurin relate to a breach of the labelling of foodstuffs, requiring that the national law which has no connection with presentation of a product should also indi­ Community law. cate its use-by date. However, the purpose of that legislative rule, as is clear from the first recital in the preamble to the directive, is to remove the 'differences which exist ... between the laws, regulations and adminis­ trative provisions of Member States on the labelling of foodstuffs', and which 'impede the free circulation of these products and can The Court has consistently held that lead to unequal conditions of competition'. 'although it is the duty of the Court to To that end, it was considered that 'a list ensure observance of fundamental rights in should be drawn up of all information which the field of Community law, it has no power should in principle be included in the label­ to examine the compatibility with the Euro­ pean Convention on Human Rights of national legislation lying outside the scope of

Although the Court has the task of ensuring compliance with fundamental rights specifically within the sphere of Community law, it is not for the Court to exam­ ine whether national legislation which , as in the present case, falls outside the scope of Community law is compatible with the principles concerning observance of the rights of the defence and of the adversarial nature of proceedings .

3 — Judgment in Case 12 /86 Demirel ν Stadt Schwäbisch Gmünd 12/ [1987] ECR 3719, paragraph 28. See also the judgment in Joined Cases 60/84 and 61/84 Cinéthèque ν Fédération Nationale des Cinémas Français [1985] ECR 2605, paragraph 26.

I-2913