C-230/98

3. The Amministrazione delle Finanze dello * Original language: Spanish. Stato — Dogana di Trieste (Trieste Cus- 1 — Council Regulation (EEC) No 545/92 of 3 February 1992 toms Authority), the applicant in the main concerning the arrangements applicable to the import into the Community of products originating in the Republics of proceedings, considered that those certifi- Croatia and Slovenia and the Yugoslav Republics of Bosnia Herzegovina, Macedonia and Montenegro (OJ 1992 L 63, cates were not valid and did not therefore p. 1). enable the imported goods to be eligible for 2 — Commission Regulation ( E E C )No 859/92 of 3 April 1992 laying down detailed rules governing imports ot 'baby-beef' preferential trading treatment. Conse- originating i nthe Republics of Croatia and Slovenia and the quently, it demanded payment of the Yugoslav Republics of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia and Montenegro (OJ 1992 L 89, p. 26). import duties plus VAT and interest, in a

I - 3549

OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-230/9S

total sum of ITL 2 3 3 971 4 8 0 . The panied goods released for free circulation in insurance company covering the underta- the Member States after 5 April 1992, king's risks paid the maximum amount should be regarded as valid for the pur- covered, equivalent to ITL 150 000 000, poses of the grant of the fiscal advantages and the balance due to the customs author- provided for by Regulation N o 545/92 ity was thus reduced to ITL 83 971 480. even though no authorised body had been appointed to certify the origin and nature of products in certain Republics of the former Yugoslavia.

SCHI/WON

No 895/92 exhaustive and does it 8. Regulation (EEC) No 3567/91 7 (herein- deprive the Savezni Trzisni Inspektorat after 'Regulation No 3567/91') then of any authority to issue certificates?' granted to the Republics of Bosnia-Herze- govina, Croatia and Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia trade benefits which were almost the same as those provided for by the Cooperation Agreement, covering a range of products but not 'baby-beef'.

III — The Community legislation and the context in which it was adopted

I - 3551

OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-230/98

the Commission shall ensure that each 'baby-beef' into the Community from the Republic concerned shall maintain an Republics in question. appropriate delivery rate and shall adopt any measures required to ensure the orderly growth of its exports to the Community, in particular through effective controls on each consignment by means of a certificate stating that the goods originate in and Article 1 thereof provides: come from the Republic concerned and correspond exactly to the definition in Annex E. The text of this certificate shall be drawn up by the Community.'

'The reduced levies collected on import referred to in Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 545/92 shall only apply to products accompanied by certificates as provided for in Article 7(3) of that Regulation.

That regulation was of temporary applica- tion, limited to the year 1992. 2. The specimen for those certificates shall be as set out in Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 1368/88.

10. On 3 April 1 9 9 2 , R e g u l a t i o n No 859/92 was adopted in compliance with Article 10 of Regulation No 545/92, 4. Certificates shall be valid only if they are which requires the Commission to draw up duly endorsed by an issuing agency appear- detailed rules for the implementation of ing on the list in Annex I hereto.' agricultural provisions. The national court has also requested an interpretation of Regulation No 859/92. The purpose of the latter regulation was to specify the requirements for obtaining a reduction in the levy, as envisaged by Article 7 of 11. The issuing agencies listed in Annex I Regulation No 545/92, for imports of to Regulation No 859/92 are: for the I - 3552

15. Regulation No 1368/88 10 laid down 12. Article 2 of Regulation No 859/92 pro- the conditions for granting the trade ben- vides: efits provided for by the Additional Proto- col to the Cooperation Agreement with Yugoslavia for the import of beef into the Community. Under that regulation, when such meat is placed in free circulation in the Community, a certificate issued in Yugosla- via is to be submitted in the form described in Article 3 thereof. Such certificates must be authenticated by an issuing agency. According to Article 6 thereof, which 'At the request of the parties concerned and applies to operations carried out pursuant on presentation of proof that products to Regulations No 545/92 and 859/92, an released for free circulation in the Member issuing agency must be recognised as such States in the period 1 January to 5 April by the exporting country, must undertake 1992 were accompanied by certificates as to verify the particulars shown in the provided for in Article 1(2) endorsed either certificates, must undertake to provide the by a body listed in Annex I or by the body Commission and Member States, on in Annex II hereto, the Member States shall request, with all appropriate information reimburse the difference between the levies to enable an assessment to be made of the set out in column 2 and 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 853/92 provided the place of issue of the aforementioned lies within the 9 — Council Regulation (EEC) No 3953/92 of 21 December geographical territory of a republic men- 1992 concerning the arrangements applicable to the import into the Community of products originating in the Repub- tioned in Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) lics of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and Slovenia ana the No 545/92.' territory of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (OJ 1992 L 406, p. 1) replaced Regulation No 545/92. The Commission adopted Regulation (EEC) No 185/93 of 29 January 1993 laying down detailed rules governing imports or certain beef and veal products originating in the Republics of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (OJ 1993 L 22, p. 70), which implements the previous regulation and mentions, in the annex thereto, 'Cargoinspect' of Skopje as the issuing agency authorised to issue certificates of origin for the import of goods from the territory of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. 10 — Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1368/88 of 18 May 1988 specifying the conditions for the inclusion of certain live animals of the domestic bovine species and certain meat of the bovine species within the CN codes listed in 13. The issuing agency listed in Annex II Annex E to the Additional Protocol to the Cooperation thereto is the 'Savezni Trzisni Inspektorat' Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia establish- of Belgrade. ing new trade arrangements (OJ 1988 L 126, p. 26).

As far as the present case is concerned, the IV — Procedure before the Court of Justice other articles provide that the products listed in Annex B are to be subject to import duties (Article 2); that the import of 16. The Italian Government and the Com- products listed in Annexes CI, CII, CIII and mission have filed written observations CIV is to be subject to annual ceilings within the period prescribed by Article 20 above which the customs duties actually of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice. applicable in respect of other countries may None of the parties concerned asked to be be reintroduced (Article 3); and that, for allowed to submit oral observations and the agricultural products listed in Annex D, thus the Court decided, under Arti- reduced rates of customs duties and tariff cle 104(4) of its Rules of Procedure, to quotas are to apply (Articles 4 to 6). As far dispense with a hearing. as 'baby-beef' products (defined in Annex E) are concerned, tariff quotas are laid down and provision is also made for a reduction in the levy. In order to ensure that goods do in fact originate in a particular Republic and that they correspond exactly to the definition given in Annex E, Arti- V — Examination of the questions referred cle 7(3) provides that the text of a certifi- cate is to be drawn up by the Community to cover this.

17. I should start by explaining the purpose of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling, in relation to which the Italian court is particularly interested in Article 1 of Regulation No 545/92. 19. It is quite clear from the order of the national court that the relevant rules to be applied by it in the main proceedings, and concerning which it expresses doubts, are those governing the import of 'baby-beef' 18. That article simply states that products products into the Community. I therefore not listed in Annex II to the EC Treaty or in believe that the present case requires an Annex A to the regulation which originate interpretation of Article 7 of Regulation in the Republics of Croatia and Slovenia No 545/92 and of Regulation No 859/92, and in the former Yugoslav Republics of which was adopted by the Commission in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia and Mon- order to accomplish the task imposed on it I - 3554

20. Having made that point, it seems clear that the Tribunale di Treviso has referred 22. Article 7 of Regulation No 545/92 the first of the two questions with a view to established a specific and complete system discovering whether individuals may rely of trade benefits for the import of 'baby- on Article 7 of Regulation No 545/92, in beef' products into the Community. Para- conjunction with Regulation No 859/92, in graphs 1 and 2 of that article respective- order to import 'baby-beef' into the Com- ly imposed an annual Community quota of munity with the benefit of a reduced levy, 25 000 tonnes for which the amount of the so that, if no agency has been appointed levy was equivalent to 20% of the basic with authority to certify that the products levy and a second annual quota of 25 400 originated in one of the Republics, the tonnes, to be used once the first quota had submission of a certificate authenticated by been exhausted, the levy for the latter the agency which was previously so autho- quota being equivalent to 50% of the basic rised can give them an effective right to levy. import on that basis.

23. There were various requirements which had to be fulfilled before importers could In the view of both the Italian Government benefit from those advantages. First, the and the Commission, the reply to that more reduced levy only applied to the first question must be in the negative. I have to annual quota of 25 000 tonnes and only on say that I agree with them. condition that the free-at-frontier offer

I - 3555

OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-230/98

Second, the levy equivalent to 50% of the basic levy was applicable to a second annual quota of 25 400 tonnes, to be used after the first quota was exhausted. That 24. Article 7 of Regulation No 545/92 second quota was likewise dependent on clearly did not confer on economic opera- the price, calculated in the same way as for tors automatic eligibility for the reduced the first quota, being not less than that levy when importing 'baby-beef' products resulting from application of the normal into the Community. On the contrary, that levy. eligibility was conditional on compliance with a number of requirements, none of which was under the control of the opera- tor apart from that concerning submission of the certificate. The other requirements were dependent on factors such as the total number of tonnes imported and the Com- Third, other limits were imposed for those munity market price, which were to be quotas where the Community market price supervised and checked by the Commis- was less than 98% of the guide price. Thus, sion. a maximum volume of tonnes per month was provided for and there was a limit on the amount of unused tonnes which could be carried over from one month to the following month or from the January-May period to the June-September period, as well as a limit on the monthly volume for the latter period. 25. My opinion, based on the above, is that Article 7 of Regulation No 545/92 did not confer on individuals an unconditional right to import 'baby-beef' products into the Community during its period of valid- ity, since a series of requirements had to be complied with in order for it to apply, most Fourth, the Republics covered by that of which were linked to factors over which regulation were required to notify the the traders concerned had no control and competent Community bodies of any rele- compliance with which was to be assessed vant information concerning export prices by the Commission, which was empowered together with the quantities and presenta- to adopt measures on the basis of the tion of the products exported (livestock, findings made by it and enjoyed a measure carcase or quarters). of discretion in that regard. I - 3556

27. Pursuant to the implementing powers conferred on it by Regulation No 545/92, the Commission adopted on 3 April 1992 Regulation No 859/92, which came into force on 6 April 1992. Under Article 1 thereof, the reduced levies applied only to products accompanied by a certificate in the form of the specimen set out in Regulation No 1368/88. 29. In accordance with Article 12 of Reg- ulation No 545/92, the import arrange- ments introduced by that regulation were applicable from 1 January until 31 Decem- ber 1992. Since the implementing regula- tion adopted by the Commission did not Under Article 7(3) of R e g u l a t i o n come into force until 6 April 1992, it had No 545/92, that certificate served two to be given retroactive effect, and this was purposes: (1) to prove that the goods which done by Article 2. That article required it accompanied originated in the Republic Member States to reimburse the difference whose issuing agency had authenticated that document and (2) to ensure that the goods corresponded exactly to the defini- 11 — The Commission points out in its observations that, at the meeting held on 19 and 20 March 1992 in Zagreb, to tion of 'baby-beef' products contained in which authorities from the Republics concerned were invited so that they could specify those agencies which Annex E to that regulation. would be authorised to issue certificates in the beef sector, only the Croatian and Slovenian authorities could guar- antee the creation of adequate administrative structures to enable the proper functioning of the preferential arrange- ments laid down in Article 7 of Regulation N o 545/92. It adds that the authorities of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia were not even present at the meeting. 12 — According to the Commission, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia did not appoint an issuing agency until January 1993. That agency, called Cargoinspect, 28. The certificate was valid only if it had based in Skopje, was entered in the Annex t o Commission Regulation (EEC) N o 185/93, which came into force on been authenticated by one of the agencies 1 January 1993.

It was accepted that certificates in respect 31. In view of the fact that the Savezni of imports made during that period were Trzisni Inspektorat of Belgrade belonged to authenticated both by one of the bodies the Republic of Serbia and certificates listed in Annex I, that is to say, the one for issued in that territory could not confer a the Republic of Croatia or the one for the right to preferential trade treatment, accep- Republic of Slovenia, and by the agency tance of certificates endorsed by branches mentioned in Annex II, namely the Savezni of that agency in the territory of the other Trzisni Inspektorat of Belgrade, the issuing Republics could be justified until such time agency authorised for that purpose under as the Commission recognised the respec- the rules implementing the Cooperation tive issuing agencies of those Republics. Agreement between the Community and However, this does not mean that the the Yugoslav Republic concerning trade preferential arrangements could not start concessions, which were suspended by to be applied or that the competence of that Regulation 3300/91. agency had to be extended until such time as the Commission managed to identify an agency in each of the Republics in which it had sufficient confidence to allow it to take control of exports to the Community. 30. According to those rules, certificates authenticated by the Savezni Trizsni Inspektorat of Belgrade were valid for the purposes of seeking reimbursement of the difference between the amounts of certain levies only if they had accompanied goods 32. The Court ruled on this point in its released into free circulation in the Member judgment in Anastasiou,ls which con- cerned the question whether the customs authorities of Member States should accept 13 — Commission Regulation (EEC) No 853/92 of 3 April 1992 movement certificates proving the Cypriot fixing the import levies on live cattle and on beef and veal other than frozen (OJ 1992 L 89, p. 11). origin of goods which had been issued by 14 — The CN codes entered in that Annex relate to live animals the Turkish community in the northern part of the bovine species and their meat, and are the same as those appearing in Annex E to Regulation No 545/92. of the island of Cyprus. In that case, the Where those products came from Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia or Montenegro, the applicable levy was about 17% of the levy applied to other non-member countries. 15 — Case C-432/92 Anastasiou and Others [1994] ECR1-3087.

Court stated that the system whereby The same conclusion must a fortiori he movement certificates are regarded as evi- adopted as regards cooperation with the dence of the origin of products is founded authorities and agencies of a State such as on the principle of mutual reliance and the Republic of Serbia, which was not even cooperation between the competent autho- one of the beneficiaries of the preferential rities of the exporting State and those of the trade arrangements introduced by Regula- importing State. 16 Acceptance of certifi- tion No 545/92. cates by the customs authorities of the importing State reflects their confidence in the system of checking the origin of pro- ducts as implemented by the competent authorities of the exporting State. It also shows that the importing State is in no doubt that subsequent verification, consul- tation and settlement of any disputes in respect of the origin of products or the 34. As regards the different treatment existence of fraud will be carried out accorded to the Republics benefitting from efficiently with the cooperation of the the preferential trade arrangements, authorities concerned. 17 depending on whether or not they had designated an issuing agency in which the Commission had confidence, the Court of Justice has also stated in its case-law that there exists in the Treaty no general prin- ciple obliging the Community, in its exter- nal relations, to accord to non-member countries equal treatment in all respects and that, if different treatment of non- member countries is compatible with Com- munity law, different treatment accorded to traders within the Community must also be regarded as compatible with Community law where that different treatment is 33. In that judgment, the Court held that a merely an automatic consequence of the system of that kind could not therefore different treatment accorded to non-mem- function properly unless the procedures for ber parties with which such traders have administrative cooperation were strictly entered into commercial relations. 19 complied with. However, such cooperation was excluded with the authorities of an entity such as that established in the north- ern part of Cyprus, which is recognised neither by the Community nor by the Member States; the only Cypriot State they recognise is the Republic of Cyprus. 18 35. Nor can such traders plead, in view of the invalidity of the certificate authenti- 16 — Ibid., paragraph .38. See also Case 218/85 Les Rapides Savoyards and Others [1984] ECR 3105 and Case C-12/92 Huygen ami Others [1993] ECR I-6381. 17 — Ibid., paragraph 39. 19 — Case 52/8I Faust v Commission [1982] ECR 3745, 18 — Ibid., paragraph 40. paragraph 25.

(1) Article 7 of Council Regulation (EEC) N o 545/92 of 3 February 1992 concerning the arrangements applicable to the import into the Community of products originating in the Republics of Croatia and Slovenia and the Yugoslav Republics of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia and Montenegro did I - 3560

SCHIAVON

not confer on individuals an unconditional right to import 'baby-beef' products into the Community during the period of its validity, since the application thereof was subject to a series of requirements, most of which were linked to factors over which the traders concerned had no control and compliance with which was to be assessed by the Commission, which was empowered to adopt measures on the basis of the findings made by it and enjoyed a measure of discretion in that regard.

(2) The issuing bodies authorised to endorse the certificates referred to in Article 7(3) of Regulation N o 545/92 during 1992 are those listed in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 859/92 of 3 April 1992 laying down detailed rules governing imports of 'baby-beef' originating in the Republics of Croatia, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republics of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia and Montenegro. Although throughout 1992 no issuing agency was appointed for the territory of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to endorse such certificates, the competence of the Savezni Trzisni Inspektorat of Belgrade could not be extended beyond 5 April 1992.

I-3561