Court of Justice 21-06-1988 ECLI:EU:C:1988:331

Judgment

1 By an application lodged with the Court Registry on 15 April 1987, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 169 of the EEC Treaty for a declaration that by virtue of its domestic provisions and its practice with regard to imports of sheepmeat and goatmeat and of live sheep and goats, in particular by imposing on such imports maximum prices and systematically checking that those prices are complied with, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 30 and 113 of the EEC Treaty, Council Regulation (EEC) No 1837/80 of 27 June 1980 on the common organization of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat (Official Journal 1980, L 183, p. 1), Commission Regulation (EEC) No 19/82 of 6 January 1982 laying down detailed rules for applying Regulation (EEC) No 2641/80 with regard to imports of sheepmeat and goatmeat products originating in certain nonmember countries, and Commission Regulation No 20/82 of 6 January 1982 on special detailed rules for applying the system of import and export licences for sheepmeat and goatmeat (Official Journal 1982, L 3, pp. 18 and 26) and agreements in the form of exchanges of letters between the European Economic Community and certain nonmember countries on trade in the sheepmeat and goatmeat sector.

2 It appears from the documents before the Court that, by Decision No E6/1484/3/84 of 19 March 1984, the Greek Minister of Trade gave notice of maximum prices for imports of sheepmeat and goatmeat and live sheep and goats into the Hellenic Republic. Under that decision invoices for such imports were to be submitted to an exchange-control committee for the purpose of preventive control of prices, and import licences already issued for imports invoiced at a higher price were to be cancelled unless the price of the goods had already been paid.

3 Reference is made to the Report for the Hearing for details of the prelitigation proceedings and the submissions and arguments of the parties, which are mentioned hereinafter only in so far as is necessary for the reasoning of the Court.

4 The Greek Government asserts that the prices fixed by the contested decision are merely target prices. Their aim is to facilitate the work of the exchange-control authorities by enabling them to prevent the illegal outflow of foreign exchange and they have the incidental effect of protecting healthy competition and preventing unrealistic and artificial price increases. In the Greek Government's view, the notification of such prices cannot be regarded as a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on imports within the meaning of Article 30 of the Treaty or as affecting the common commercial policy as provided for in Article 113 of the Treaty.

5 With regard to the nature of the prices in question, it should be noted that the very title of the contested decision appears to give them mandatory force. At the hearing, the representative of the Greek Government explained that in fact traders are aware of the risk of penalties and accept the prices fixed and that in practice there are no imports at higher prices. In those circumstances, it must be accepted that they are maximum prices observance of which is a prerequisite for any importation. It is, moreover, undisputed that those maximum prices and preliminary price control measures apply not to domestic production but only to imports either from other Member States of the Community or from nonmember countries.

6 Such a system is obviously capable, at least potentially, of forming a barrier to trade. When applied to imports from other Member States it therefore constitutes, according to the consistent case-law of the Court (see primarily the judgment of 11 July 1974 in Case 8/74 Procureur du Roi v Dassonville [1974] ECR 837), a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction, prohibited by Article 30 of the Treaty, as, indeed, is indicated in Article 2 (3) (a) of Commission Directive 70/50 of 22 December 1969, based on Article 33 (7) of the Treaty, on the abolition of measures which have an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions on imports and are not covered by other provisions adopted in pursuance of the EEC Treaty (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1970 (I), p. 17).

7 The monetary objective of the contested measure is not such as to justify it. As the Court has consistently held (see, most recently, the judgment of 7 June 1988 in Case 57/86 Hellenic Republic v Commission [1988] ECR 2855), the fact that Member States retain certain monetary powers does not entitle them to take unilateral measures prohibited by the Treaty.

8 The'prohibition on taking unilateral national measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions was extended to trade with nonmember countries by Article 20 (2) of Regulation No 1837/80, cited above, which forms the basic regulation on the common organization of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat. That regulation also set up a price system providing, inter alia, for a basic price and an intervention price and the Court consistently held (see primarily the judgment of 6 November 1979 in Case 10/79 Toffoli v Regione Veneto [1979] ECR 3301) that in sectors covered by a common organization of the market, and a fortiori when that organization is based on a common price system, Member States can no longer take action, through national provisions adopted unilaterally, affecting the machinery of price formation at the same production or marketing stage established under the common organization. It must therefore be held that the contested Greek measure is also contrary to Regulation No 1837/80.

9 In relation to imports from nonmember countries, the contested measure falls within the scope of the common commercial policy which, under Article 113 of the Treaty, is within the exclusive competence of the Community. That fact is highlighted by the conclusion of voluntary-restraint agreements between the Community and certain nonmember countries, particularly State-trading countries, precisely in the sheepmeat and goatmeat sector. Those agreements prohibit any measures having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on imports in so far as trade does not exceed certain quantities, and provides for the automatic issue of import licences by Member States on presentation of export licences. The two Commission Regulations, Nos 19/82 and 20/82, cited above, cover the implementation of those obligations in the Member States. It must therefore be held that the contested Greek measure is also contrary to the abovementioned provisions.

10 It follows from the foregoing that, by imposing maximum prices on imports of sheepmeat and goatmeat and of live sheep and goats and systematically checking that those prices are complied with, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 30 and 113 of the EEC Treaty, Council Regulation No 1837/80, Commission Regulations Nos 19/82 and 20/82 and the agreements in the form of exchanges of letters between the European Economic Community and certain nonmember countries in the sheepmeat and goatmeat sector.