C-219/98

2. The objective of Council Directive 77/93/EEC of 21 December 1976 on pro- 1. The present request by the House of tective measures against the introduction Lords, England and Wales, for a prelimin- into the Community of organisms harmful ary ruling arises from the response of to plants or plant products and against companies exporting citrus fruit from the their spread within the Community 3is to part of Cyprus to the north of the United prevent the reduction of plant production Nations Buffer Zone to the ruling of the in the Community through protective mea- Court in Anastasiou and Others 1(herein- sures against the introduction of harmful after 'Anastasiou I') that Member State organisms. 4To that end, it requires the authorities were not entitled to accept Member States to adopt certain rules phytosanitary certificates issued by autho- governing the introduction into their terri- rities other than the competent authorities tory of plants and plant products from of the Republic of Cyprus in respect of other Member States and third countries. imports of such fruit from Cyprus. The companies in question subsequently began to export their produce to the Community via a port in Turkey, where phytosanitary certificates were granted by the competent Turkish authorities. Although the case has 3. With regard to imports from third implications for the troubled political situa- countries, Article 12 5of the Directive, in tion in Cyprus, 2the legal issues concern the system of supervision of the health of plants and plant products imported into the 3 — OJ 1977 L 26, p. 20, hereinafter 'the Directive'. The original title was amended by Council Directive 91/683/ Community from third countries. EEC of 19 December 1991, OJ 1991 L 376, p. 29. 4 — See the second, third, fourth, fifth and seventh recitals in the preamble to the Directive. 5 — As amended by Council Directive 80/392/EEC of 18 March 1980, OJ 1980 L 100, p. 32, Council Directive 85/574/EEC * Original language: English. of 19 December 1985, OJ 1985 L 372, p. 25, and Directive 1 — Case C-432/92 [1994] ECR I-3087, paragraph 65 and 91/683/EEC, loc. cit. Unlike the Republic of Turkey, the operative part. Republic of Cyprus is not a party to the International Plant 2 — For a brief overview, see Anastasiou I, paragraph 13, and Protection Convention mentioned in Article 12(1)(b) of the the Opinion or Advocate General Gulmann, paragraphs 9 Directive. It was stated at the oral hearing that Cyprus had to 14. signed the Convention in 1999.

(a) that these plants, plant products and other objects and their packaging shall (b) that they must be accompanied by the be meticulously inspected on an official certificates prescribed in Articles 7 and basis, either in their entirety or by 8 and that a phytosanitary certificate representative sample, and that, if may not be made out more than 14 necessary, the vehicles transporting days before the date on which the them shall also be inspected meticu- plants, plant products or other objects lously on an official basis in order to leave the consignor country. The certi- make sure as far as can be determined: ficates prescribed in Articles 7 or 8 ... shall be issued by authorities empow- ered for this purpose under the Inter- national Plant Protection Convention, or, in the case of non-contracting countries, on the basis of laws or regulations of the country. In accor- — that they are not contaminated by dance with the procedure laid down in the harmful organisms listed in Article 16, lists of the authorities Annex I, Part A, empowered by the various non-mem- ber countries to issue certificates may be established.

— in the case of the plants and plant products listed in Annex II, Part A, ... .' that they are not contaminated by

I - 5244

ANASTASIOU AND OTHERS

4. Article 7(1) 6of the Directive provides: official languages of the Community, ... shall be issued. This certificate must be attached to the phytosanitary certificate issued by the first Member State or to a certified copy of the latter certificate. This certificate may be entitled "phytosanitary certificate for re-export" ' 'Where it is considered, on the basis of the examination laid down in Article 6(1) and (2), that the conditions therein are fulfilled, a phytosanitary certificate conforming to the model in Annex VIII, Part A, may be issued ... .' 5. Article 6 of the Directive 8 provides:

Any producer for whom the official exam- ination referred to above is required under paragraphs 1 to 4 shall be listed in an official register under a registration number by which to identify him. The official registers thus established shall be accessible to the Commission on r e q u e s t .….' 4. ...

The official examinations referred to in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall be carried out in accordance with the following provi- sions: Article 9(1) of the Directive 9provides:

(a) They shall extend to the relevant plants or plant products grown, produced or used by the producer or otherwise present on his premises as well as to '1. In the case of plants, plant products or the growing medium used there. other objects to which special requirements laid down in Annex IV, Part A apply, the official phytosanitary certificate required pursuant to Article 7 shall have been issued

(b) They shall be made on the premises, 9 — As amended by Council Directive 89/439/EEC of 26 June preferably at the place of production. 1989, OJ 1989 L 212, p. 106.

I - 5246

ANASTASIOU AND OTHERS

6. Annex V to the Directive is headed 'Plants, plant products and other objects which must be subject to a plant health inspection — at the place of production if originating in the Community, before being moved within the Community, — in the country of origin or the consignor country, (ii) The International plant Protection if originating outside the Community, — Convention before being permitted to enter the Com- munity'. 10 Citrus fruits are among the plants and plant products listed in Part B of Annex V to the Directive. 8. The International Convention for the Protection of Plants and Plant Products, done at Rome on 6 December 1951 12 (hereinafter 'the Convention'), resulted, to 7. Annex IV, Part A, to the Directive lays a certain extent, in the harmonisation of down special requirements for 'fruits of plant health laws, but closer harmonisa- Citrus L., Fortunella Swingle, Foncirus 11 — These special requirements were added to Annex IV, Part A, by Commission Directive 92/103/EEC of 1 Decem- 10 — As a m e n d e d by C o u n c i l Directive 9 2 / 9 8 / E E C of ber 1992 amending Annexes I to IV of Council Directive 16 November 1992, OJ 1992 L 352, p. 1. Annex V was 77/93/EEC on protective measures against the introduction initially entitled 'Plants, plant products and other objects into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or which must be subjected to a plant health inspection in the plant products and against their spread within the country of origin or the consignor country, before being Community, OJ 1992 L 363, p. 1. permitted to enter any of the Member States'. 12 — United Kingdom Treaty Series N o 16 (1954).

9. The Turkish community in the part of Cyprus to the north of the United Nations Buffer Zone (hereinafter 'the northern part (i) the inspection of growing plants, of of Cyprus') styles itself as the 'Turkish areas under cultivation (including Republic of Northern Cyprus' (hereinafter fields, plantations, nurseries, gar- 'TRNC'), but is not recognised by the dens and greenhouses), and of Community or any of its Member States. plants and plant products in sto- They recognise the Republic of Cyprus as a rage and in transportation particu- sovereign State whose territory comprises larly with the object of reporting the whole of the island of Cyprus, apart the existence, outbreak and spread from the United Kingdom's sovereign base of plant pests and of controlling areas. In Anastasiou I, the Court addressed those pests; the question referred by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales as to whether, having regard to the Directive, Community law precluded Member States from accept- ing, or required them to accept, the impor- tation of, inter alia, citrus products from Cyprus accompanied by phytosanitary cer- tificates issued by the Turkish community in the northern part of Cyprus and not by officials duly authorised by the Republic of 13 — Sixth and seventh recitals in the preamble to the Directive. Cyprus.

I - 5248

ANASTASIOU AND OTHERS

63 Furthermore, any difficulty or doubt concerning a certificate must be brought to the attention of the autho- rities of the exporting State by the importing Member State. That coop- 66 The special situation of Cyprus, which eration, which is necessary in order to is the result of its de facto partition ..., achieve the objectives of the directive, is not such as to alter, with regard to cannot be established with authorities exports of products from its northern who are not recognised either by the part, the conclusions reached on the

I - 5249

OPINTON OF MR FENNELLY — CASE C-219/98

(iv) The present case

13. S.R Anastasiou (Pissouri) Limited and a number of other producers and exporters of citrus fruit and potatoes established in the part of Cyprus to the south of the 12. Subsequent to the ruling of the Court in United Nations Buffer Zone, which had Anastasiou I, two undertakings which already initiated the litigation leading to imported citrus fruit and potatoes into the the judgment in Anastasiou I (hereinafter United Kingdom from the northern part of 'the appellants'), requested the High Court, within the framework of those proceedings, to grant an order restraining the Minister of 14 — Agreement of 19 December 1972 establishing an Associa- Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (hereinafter tion between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Cyprus, annexed to Council Regulation (EEC) 'the respondent') from allowing into the No 1246/73 of 14 May 1973, OJ 1973 L 133, p. 1. 15 — Paragraph 38 of the judgment. United Kingdom, any citrus fruit or pota- 16 — Anastasiou I, paragraphs 38 to 41. toes produced in the northern part of

I - 5250

ANASTASIOU AND OTHERS

2. Does the answer to Question 1 differ, 14. The House of Lords summarised the and if so, how, if the relevant plants are essential issue as being 'whether, if the subject to special requirements laid interveners cannot lawfully import these down in Annex IV, Part A, Section 1 citrus fruits directly into the United King- to the Directive which can be fulfilled dom with certificates issued in the TRNC, in non-member countries other than they can do so by sending them to a Turkish that of origin within the meaning of port from which, backed by phytosanitary Article 9(1) of the Directive? certificates issued in that port, they are then sent on to the United Kingdom by a Turkish company which is to all intents and pur- poses the same as the interveners'. It referred the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: 3. Is the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-432/92 Anastasiou [1994] ECR I-3087 to be interpreted and applied so as to preclude the national authorities of a Member State from permitting the importation of citrus ' 1 . Under Article 12(1)(b) of Council fruits originating in the part of Cyprus Directive 77/93/EEC of 21 December to the north of the United Nations 1976 on protective measures against Buffer Zone when they are accompa- the introduction into the Member nied by a phytosanitary certificate States of organisms harmful to plants which has been issued by the autho- or plant products, as amended ("the rities of another non-member country

I - 5251

OPINION OF MR FENNELLY — CASE C-219/98

from which those citrus fruits have III— Observations submitted to the Court been transported to the Community?

I - 5252

ANASTASIOU AND OTHERS

the Community, at which point a United Part A, to the Directive must be fulfilled in States certificate would no longer comply the country of origin, it implies that the with Article 12(1)(b) of the Directive. general requirement of certification may be Thus, only in special cases is it essential satisfied in other places, as no provision is that the certificate be issued in the country made for the issue of multiple, partial of origin of the plants. 17 With a view to the phytosanitary certificates. This may be establishment of the internal market, the contrasted with the position under the Directive has, since 1993, laid down two original version of Article 9(1) of the different regimes, one for Community Directive, which provided for certification plants, based on the registration of produ- of compliance with special requirements in cers and the examination of plants at their addition to that prescribed in Articles 7 and place of production, 18 and the other for 8. The sole special requirements applicable imports from non-member countries, to citrus fruit from Cyprus or Turkey are which bans the importation of certain that it be free from leaves and stalks and plants, subjects others to special require- that the packaging bear an appropriate ments and in other cases (such as that of origin mark. These can be verified by visual apples and pears) merely requires phytosa- inspection, as can the absence of contam- nitary certification. Many plants are not ination by certain organisms mentioned in subject to certification at all. Although two Annexes I and II to the Directive, with the regimes exist, the levels of protection result that there is no obstacle to accepting assured by each are equivalent. third-country certification pursuant to an appropriate inspection of the produce.

to be registered. It would also make a 20. As regards the Convention, not all of its nonsense of the exceptions provided for in objectives are also pursued by the Direc- Article 9(1). Prior to the establishment of tive, for example, those relating to produc- the dual regime in 1993, there was no tion conditions in third countries. stipulation in Article 6 of the Directive regarding the place of inspection of Com- munity produce. It would be dispropor- tionate to impose a condition of certifica- tion in the third country of origin, as this is not necessary to the achievement of the objectives of the Directive. The require- ment in Article 12(1)(a) of further systema- 21. The judgment in Anastasiou I was only tic inspections upon importation would concerned with the interpretation of the also be unnecessary in such circumstances words 'authorities empowered' in Arti- and, therefore, disproportionate 19 and dis- cle 12(1)(b) of the Directive and does not criminatory, contrary to Article 40(3) of affect the present case. The problems of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, cooperation with officials of an entity Article 34(2) EC) and the WTO Phytosa- which is not recognised do not arise with nitary Agreement. Turkish officials.

I - 5254

ANASTASIOU AND OTHERS

23. In the light of the foregoing arguments, tions in Article 6(4). Although Article 6(4) the possibility of obtaining phytosanitary does not apply directly to third countries, certificates in a third consignor country the Community is entitled to impose other than the country of origin of plants is equivalent requirements as a condition of foreseen by the Directive and recourse to the importation of produce from non- that option in respect of citrus fruit from member countries. It would be contrary to the northern part of Cyprus cannot be the objective of the Directive if laxer characterised as an abuse. It involves sim- controls, such as visual inspection in the ple reliance on a Community-law right, as hold of a ship in the port of a consignor opposed to situations where it is sought to country or upon crossing the Community use Community law to achieve an end frontier, were permitted for third-country which would otherwise be unlawful under imports than are required for Community national law. plants, which are subject to inspection at the place of production. The system of controls over growing plants and areas under cultivation established by Article I- V(1)(a)(i) of the Convention also indicates that meticulous inspection is only possible in the country of origin. The 'appropriate procedures' mentioned in the model phy- tosanitary certificate in Annex VIII, Part A, to the Directive should be understood as referring to this provision of the Conven- (ii) The case against permitting importation tion.

country is not satisfied. Furthermore, it the issue of a phytosanitary certificate in would be absurd if the mere fact that the the country of origin of produce listed in special requirement regarding the removal Annex IV, Part A which was imported into of leaves and stalks could be verified by the Community, in addition to those pre- visual inspection after export from the scribed in Articles 7 and 8 of the Directive. country of origin were to entail that checks regarding the harmful organisms men- tioned in Annexes I and II to the Directive, which require knowledge of and control over the conditions of production, could also be carried out after initial export to another third country. Counsel for Anasta- siou expressed concern at the oral hearing 27. Anastasiou I is central to resolving the about the possibility of detecting certain case and the third question should be microscopic insects through a brief visual answered first. The judgment makes refer- inspection. Thus, Article 9(1) permits cer- ence to the need for cooperation between tification outside the country of origin of national authorities concerning contami- compliance with special requirements nated produce. 22 In such circumstances, it imposed by Annex IV, Part A, only to the must be possible to raise the problem with extent that those requirements can be the authorities in the country in which the satisfied at other places. This is supplemen- plants were grown, but this is excluded as tary to the original phytosanitary certifi- regards the 'authorities' in the northern cate, the model of which in Annex VIII, part of Cyprus and the competent autho- Part A, reserves space for any 'additional rities of the Republic of Cyprus do not have declaration'. In addition, as Article 9(1) access to that area. permits a limited exception to the principle of certification in the country of origin of plants, it should not apply where satisfac- tion of all the special requirements imposed by Annex IV, Part A, can in fact be certified in the country of origin, as in the present case. 28. As regards the fifth question, Commu- nity law does not permit reliance on one legal rule to circumvent the application of another. 23 Otherwise, exporters to the Community could engage in forum-shop- ping to seek the most lax regime for the issue of phytosanitary certificates for their produce and could permit the 'laundering' 26. The reference in the heading of Annex V to the Directive to health inspec- tions in a consignor country is clearly 22 — Paragraph 63. misleading, as it is inconsistent with the 23 — Case C-23/93 TV10 [1994] ECR I-4795, paragraphs 20 to 22; Case 33/74 Van Binsbergen v Bedrijfsvereniging Directive's substantive terms and its objec- Metaalnijverheid [1974] ECR 1299, paragraph 13; Case 229/83 Leclerc v Au Blé Vert [1985] ECR 1, para- tive. This discrepancy was especially graphs 23 to 27; Case C-367/96 Kefalas and Others v obvious when the original version of Arti- Creek State and OAE [1998] ECR I-2843, paragraph 20. Case 81/87 Daily Mail [1988] ECR 5483 was cited to cle 9(1) applied, which expressly required similar effect before the Court of Appeal.

of produce of unknown or unlawful origin. extensively modified to permit the estab- There is no legitimate commercial or plant lishment of an internal market regime health reason to ship fruit to the Commu- which is only of relevance to non-Commu- nity via Turkey. nity produce once it has in fact been imported. It is possible, none the less, to draw conclusions regarding the interpreta- tion of the terms of the Directive from its structure and objectives. Pursuant to such an analysis, I accept the arguments put forward by the interveners, the United Kingdom and the Commission that the IV — Analysis authorities of a consignor country other than that of origin of non-Community agricultural produce may, in principle, certify that that produce complies with the regulations of the importing country in 29. I do not propose to address the ques- cases either where the plant in question is tions referred by the House of Lords not subject to special requirements set out seriatim. The essential question in the in Annex IV, Part A (so that Article 9(1) present case, as the House of Lords has does not apply), or where any applicable itself noted, is whether citrus fruit can be special requirements can be fulfilled at imported into the Community in circum- places other than that of origin (as envi- stances such as those at issue. The matters saged by the saver in Article 9(1)). raised in the individual questions are all, of course, important factors in reaching a decision on that question. I shall address in turn the distinct questions whether, in principle, phytosanitary certification by a non-member country other than that where the plants originate is ever permissible, and, 31. As a starting point, given that the in the case of a positive answer, whether Directive is designed to govern the free citrus fruit from the northern part of circulation of plants and plant products Cyprus can be the subject of such certifica- within the Community, whatever their tion. origin, it can be presumed that an equiva- lent standard of scrutiny should be applied to all such produce. Secondly, as Commu- nity produce is capable of being traded within the Community from the moment of harvesting, it makes sense for scrutiny to 30. I should state at the outset that the take place at or before this point in time, to Directive is not very clearly drafted and ensure that such trade is as free as possible that a degree of confusion regarding its thereafter — without prejudice to any interpretation is understandable. A parti- other arguments for such scrutiny at the cular source of difficulty is the fact that the place of production, such as greater ease of rules applicable to the importation of non- detection of certain harmful organisms. On Community plants into the Community are the other hand, intra-Community trade in set out by reference to those governing non-Community produce can only be free Community produce, which have been once such produce has actually cleared the

34. I turn now to the Directive's provisions. As regards imported plants and plant products, the Directive seeks to achieve an equivalent level of protection to that achieved by inspections within the Com- munity through acceptance, as a matter of convenience and of international comity, of the results of inspections by third-country 32. Furthermore, the Directive, which is authorities, as set out in phytosanitary based on Article 43 of the EC Treaty (now, certificates, combined with the supplemen- after amendment, Article 37 EC) as well as tary monitoring mechanism of frontier Article 100 of the EC Treaty (now Arti- inspections. It is clear to me that Arti- cle 94 EC), expresses, in the first and cle 12(1)(a) of the Directive relates exclu- second recitals in its preamble, a concern sively to the 'meticulous' inspections which for Community plant-production yields, Member States are required to conduct which justifies interest in production con- when produce coming from non-member ditions. On the other hand, the Directive's countries enters the Community for the concern with such conditions in third first time. In this respect, its terms may be countries can only be based on an interest contrasted with those of Article 12(1)(b), in controlling their impact in the Commu- which require the laying down not of nity, principally by way of controls on procedures for the grant of phytosanitary plants and plant products derived from certificates by third countries, but simply of such production. I would, therefore, accept a condition — which it is within the the argument that the Directive's aims are competence of the Community to

35. Thus, Article 12(1)(b) of the Directive, with its references back to Articles 7 and 8, is, in normal circumstances, the source of 36. It should be obvious, however, from my the standard by which to judge the accept- analysis above of the manner in which the ability of phytosanitary certificates issued Directive, as amended, implements the by third-country authorities. As we are internal market and pursues the aims of dealing in the present case with consign- the common agricultural policy that, for ments of fruit which were in no way both practical and principled reasons, the interfered with in the port of Mersin, I provisions of Article 6(4) of the Directive refer principally to Article 7. It may be regarding inspections at the place of culti- noted, first of all, that Article 12(1)(b) vation and the registration of producers

I - 5259

OPINION OF MR FENNELLY — CASE C-219/98

38. A more important structural point is 37. As regards the Cypriot citrus fruit at that, although the Court has not received issue in the present case, it appears that the three harmful organisms listed in Annex I, Part A, and Annex II, Part A, which are of 24 — There is an alternative possible reading of the heading of relevance can all be detected through Annex V — that it refers to certification by the country of origin or, in circumstances governed by Article 8(2) or the meticulous examination of the fruit itself. Directive, to certification by the consignor country.

I - 5260

ANASTASIOU AND OTHERS

40. It presents no difficulty for the Turkish regime established by Article 9(1) of the authorities, or those of any consignor Directive regarding plants and plant pro- country, to check that a stamp of some ducts which are subject to special require- sort indicating origin has been affixed to ments. the packaging of a consignment of fruit. However, the special requirement regarding citrus (and some other) fruit, set out at point 16.1 of Annex IV, Part A, to the Directive, states that this must be 'appro- priate'.

its country of origin. However, verification veracity of the mark, as it would otherwise that the packaging of the fruit contains an be useless. Furthermore, in the event of a appropriate origin mark raises more serious doubt or dispute regarding the certification difficulties. In this regard, although the of that mark, the Member State authorities point was disputed, the Court has not been must be able to cooperate with their third-

41. In the ordinary course, there should not be any problem, as Cypriot goods bound for the Community should be accompanied 43. Two further points about legislative by an EUR 1 certificate of origin issued by history seem to me to cast light on the issue. the authorities of the Republic of Cyprus, Firstly, the requirement that the phytosani- which, on the basis of international comity tary certificate be issued in the country of and administrative cooperation, could be origin was contained in the original version relied upon by the Turkish authorities to of the Directive. The saving provision in verify the origin marking on the packaging. Article 9(1) for other cases — 'to the extent Furthermore, the Member State authorities that the special requirements laid down in would be in a position to consult with the Annex IV, Part A can be fulfilled also at authorities of both Turkey and the Repub- places other than that of origin' — was lic of Cyprus in a case of suspected fraud or introduced in an amending Council Direc- other irregularity. The present case, of tive of 1989. 25 The third recital in the course, is not so simple, as the goods' preamble to that directive explains that it origin in Cyprus has not been certified by had 'become necessary to clarify the the Republic of Cyprus. requirements in Article 9(1) ... that the official phytosanitary certificate ... must be issued in the country of origin of the plants ... [and that it] ... appear[ed] appro- priate to define the exceptions to this requirement in a more general manner so that Article 9(1) need to be amended whenever a relevant amendment is made by the Commission to Annex IV'. 26 At the 42. The point of departure in the search for date of adoption of that Directive, citrus an answer to this problem is the wording of fruit was not listed in Annex IV, Part A. Article 9(1), which, in the case of products Nor was any of the other plants or plant listed in Annex IV, establishes a general products there listed subjected to any rule that 'the official phytosanitary certifi- requirement of origin marking. It is clear, cate ... shall have been issued in the country however, that the purpose of introducing in which the plant, plant products and that saver was to allow flexibility so that, other objects originate ...'. I do not accept while the Commission might amend the contention of the United Kingdom and Annex IV, the Council would not have to the interveners that this provision should be regarded as an exception to a general rule established in Article 12 read with the title 25 — Directive 89/439/EEC, cited in footnote 9 above. to Annex V that the certificate can be given 26 — There is clearly a mistake here. It should read: 'need not be'; cf. French version: 'n'ait pas besoin'. This is confirmed by the appropriate authorities in any con- by consultation of the other language versions.

47. In this light, I turn to consider whether Article 9(1) permits reliance on its saver, 45. Items 16.2, 16.3 and 16.4 in Annex IV, i.e. that the phytosanitary certificate, in so Part A, lay down, respectively, as regards far as it establishes that 'the packaging ... citrus fruit originating in third countries bear[s] an appropriate origin mark', can be where three separate plant organisms are issued other than in the country of origin. known to occur, a requirement (subject to slight variation in each of the three cases) for an 'official statement' that the fruits originate in areas free from the relevant organism or, alternatively, that the absence of symptoms thereof may be verified by observation, sampling or treatment over specified periods. It is clear that none of 48. The Commission accepted at the hear- ing that the special requirement is not met by the simple fact that the goods bear an 27 — Directive 92/103/EEC, cited in footnote 11 above. origin mark and that proof of origin is 28 — Articles 3(6), 5(3) and 16a of the Directive as amended by Directives 89/439/EEC and 91/683/EEC. required. With the support of the United

I - 5263

OPINTON OF MR FENNELLY — CASE C-219/98

Kingdom and the interveners, it claimed it is stated that 'any difficulty or doubt that this proof is adequately given by the concerning a certificate must be brought to phytosanitary certificate issued by the the attention of the authorities of the Turkish authorities. It was said that the exporting State ...' and that such 'coopera- latter could satisfy themselves of the tion ... cannot be established with autho- Cypriot origin of the fruit from an inspec- rities who are not recognised either by the tion of the accompanying shipping docu- Community or by its Member States'. 29 ments, in particular the bill of lading, and that the United Kingdom has confidence in the Turkish authorities to certify that they are so satisfied.

I - 5264

ANASTASIOU AND OTHERS

Even if non-official documents such as requirement set out in Item 16.1 in invoices could normally furnish better Annex IV, Part A — 'the fruits shall be free proof of origin than shipping documents, from peduncles and leaves' —, it is not so in the fact remains that any investigation of respect of the second — 'the packaging cases of suspected fraud, or even simple shall bear an appropriate origin mark'. error, would be irremediably hampered by the impossibility of cooperation with the authorities in the northern part of Cyprus. The Turkish authorities would not be an adequate substitute for the legitimate 52. In the light of my conclusion regarding authorities, that is, those of the Republic the acceptability of a phytosanitary certifi- of Cyprus, in any investigation of the cate issued by the authorities of a consignor underlying transactions undertaken at the country in respect of imports into the behest of and in cooperation with Member Community of third-country citrus fruit, it State authorities. I might add that an is not necessary for me to address the other erroneous or fraudulent misattribution of aspects of this case raised by the House of origin of a single consignment of contami- Lords, viz. the circumstances in which the nated fruit could have far graver and more Turkish authorities conducted their inspec- far-reaching consequences for plant health tions and the alleged abuse of Community- in the Community than the limited and law rights by the interveners. Suffice to say essentially financial consequences of such that, should the Court accept my general misattribution, for tariff purposes, under thesis regarding the issue of phytosanitary the EUR 1 regime. certificates by consignor countries and disagree with my analysis of the effect of Article 9(1) of the Directive with regard to citrus fruit, I tend to accept the arguments put forward on these points by the inter- 51. In my view, therefore, while it is veners, the United Kingdom and the Com- possible to rely on a phytosanitary certifi- mission, for the reasons set out in the cate issued by the Turkish authorities in summary of their arguments at para- respect of the first part of the special graphs 22 and 23 above.