EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 61978CC0031
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Reischl delivered on 26 October 1978. # Francesco Bussone v Ministro dell'agricoltura e foreste. # Reference for a preliminary ruling: Pretura di Venasca - Italy. # Labelling of eggs. # Case 31/78.
Návrhy generálneho advokáta - Reischl - 26. októbra 1978.
Francesco Bussone proti Ministro dell'agricoltura e foreste.
Návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania Pretura di Venasca - Taliansko.
Vec 31/78.
Návrhy generálneho advokáta - Reischl - 26. októbra 1978.
Francesco Bussone proti Ministro dell'agricoltura e foreste.
Návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania Pretura di Venasca - Taliansko.
Vec 31/78.
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:1978:191
OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL REISCHL
DELIVERED ON 26 OCTOBER 1978 ( 1 )
Mr President,
Members of the Court,
The proceedings for a preliminary ruling in which I am today delivering my opinion relate to the common organization of the market in eggs and the Community law and Italian implementing provisions adopted thereunder.
The aforesaid organization of the market is at present regulated by Regulation No 2771/75 of the Council of 29 October 1975 as amended by Regulation No 368/76. There is no need for me here to set out all its details. For the present proceedings it is enough to know that, as regards intra-Community trade, the organization of the market contains no system of price regulation or intervention. It is rather characterized by certain marketing standards which are intended to ensure that only eggs of a certain quality are marketed and which, in this way, are intended to promote sales. Implementing provisions are contained in Regulation No 2772/75 of the Council of 29 October 1975 and in Regulation No 95/69 of the Commission of 17 January 1969 which was adopted in implementation of the predecessor to Regulation No 2771/75. Under those provisions certain quality and weight classes are laid down; rules for the packaging of the eggs must also be complied with. Eggs can only be classified according to Community criteria by certain packing centres which must be authorized by the national authorities. They must affix certain details to the packs. Compliance with the whole system is supervised by the competent authorities of the Member States.
Of the relevant provisions I would cite only the following:
Article 26 of Regulation No 2772/75 provides that:
‘Compliance with this regulation shall be supervised by agencies appointed for the purpose in each Member State …
The products covered by this regulation shall be checked by means of random sampling at all stages of marketing as well as during carriage …’
Article 17 of the same regulation provides that:
‘Large packs even when they contain eggs in small packs shall be provided with a band or label which cannot be reused after the pack has been opened and which shall be issued by or under the supervision of the official agencies mentioned in Article 26’.
Paragraph (2) of that article further provides what information, in particular with regard to quality and weight-grading, must be borne on the bands or labels.
It should finally also be mentioned that Article 5 of Regulation No 95/69 of the Commission contains provisions as to the form of the bands or labels stating that they must bear an official marking laid down by the competent authority of each Member State.
Pursuant to these provisions Law No 419 of 3 May 1971 was adopted in Italy. It repeats the substantive content of the Community regulations and in addition provides that the preparation of the aforementioned bands is reserved to the Ministry for Agriculture, that the bands are to be issued for a fee and that the revenue therefrom is to serve to finance the checks provided for in the Community rules. In addition a ministerial decree of 19 October 1971 laid down a model for the bands and the prices to be paid for them by users.
Pursuant to those provisions in October 1977 the applicant in the main proceedings, who runs an authorized eggpacking centre within the meaning of Community law, had to pay Lit 180000 for bands and labels to the Ministry for Agriculture. He commenced proceedings against the Ministry for Agriculture for reimbursement of that sum on the grounds that it was contrary to Community law for various reasons which will be examined subsequently.
In view of the problems of Community law raised by the dispute the Pretore before whom the matter was brought, by order of 7 March 1978, stayed proceedings and pursuant to Article 177 of the EEC Treaty asked for a preliminary ruling on the following questions:
‘A. |
Must Regulation (EEC) No 1619/68 of the Council (as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2772/75 (Official Journal L 282 of 1 November 1975) and Regulation (EEC) 95/69 of the Commission be interpreted to mean that they empower the-Member States to reserve exclusively to their public authorities the preparation and distribution of bands and labels and in particular must the provision in Article 5 of Regulation No 95/69 in accordance with which such bands and labels “shall bear an official marking laid down by the competent authority” be interpreted to mean that this provision implies that the public authorities have an exclusive right to affix the official marking and to prepare and distribute the labels? |
B. |
Must the said regulations be interpreted to mean that the Member States may make the issue of bands and labels conditional on payment of a consideration far in excess of the cost of such bands and labels? |
C. |
Must the said regulations be interpreted to mean that their direct applicability must not be jeopardized by the adoption of national provisions which, whilst purporting to implement the regulations in question, introduce additional conditions, such as those reserving to the public authorities the right to prepare and distribute bands and labels and making the issue of such bands and labels subject to the payment of a pecuniary consideration? |
D. |
Does reservation to the public authorities of the right to prepare and distribute labels, and making the issue thereof subject to the payment of a sum in excess of their cost, result in discrimination on grounds of nationality which is prohibited in accordance with Article 7 of the EEC Treaty? |
E. |
In any case must Regulation No 2771/75 of the Council, in particular Article 2 thereof, and Regulations Nos 2772/75 of the Council and 95/69 of the Commission be interpreted to mean that a national provision laying down additional and special conditions as compared with those conditions contained in the said regulations may disturb the proper functioning of the arrangements of the organization of the market in eggs and in particular the proper observance, and accordingly the correct application and operation, of marketing standards?’ |
My opinion on this matter is as follows:
1. |
The question should first be examined whether the Community regulations permit Member States to reserve to the public administration the production and issue of the bands and labels which are necessary for the organization of the market in eggs. As regards the last pan of that question, relating to Article 5 of Regulation No 95/69, which states that the bands and labels must bear an official marking laid down by the competent authority it may be said immediately that that does not confer an exclusive right on the public administration to affix the official marking and to produce and issue the bands and labels. It is clear from the wording of the provision alone that its scope does not extend so far since, clearly, the laying down of the official marking by the competent national authority does not necessarily signify that it can be affixed only by that authority or even that-the authority alone has the right to produce bands and labels at all. In so far as the question then inquires whether the Community regulation permit the Member States to reserve to their public authorities the preparation and distribution of bands and labels, in my opinion, two observations will suffice. First, the Commission has correctly referred to Article 26 of Regulation No 2772/75 whereby compliance with the regulation is to be supervised by agencies appointed for the purpose in each Member State. From this it is clearly evident that the Community rules are not comprehensive, as the applicant in the main proceedings contends, but that the Member States must adopt administrative measures in implementation of the regulations. Accordingly, in my view, it is undeniable that with regard to the organization and details of the supervision provision is made for the Member States to have a relatively wide discretion which is certainly not restricted to checking whether the quality of the product accords with the details given on the pack. It can, therefore, certainly not be said that the form of supervisory measures as adopted in Italy is outside the framework laid down by the Community rules. In particular the view is unfounded that the supply of the labels and bands is unrelated to the national supervisory measures as, if it is undertaken by the public authorities, it saves the need for supervision to ensure that the bands accord with the specimens to be provided by the Member States pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation No 95/69. In addition in general terms it must be accepted that the checks provided for by Community law will certainly be facilitated and made more effective if they are carried out in the manner provided for in Italy, where, as we know, the bands and labels issued by the administration are numbered consecutively. Secondly, reference may also be made to Article 17, cited above, of Regulation No 2772/75 wherein it is stated that the bands and labels shall be issued by or under the supervision of the agencies mentioned in Article 26. If under those provisions issue by the public authorities is possible that certainly includes the possibility of production by the authorities of the Member States. In addition no reasonable grounds are evident why this possibility which is expressly mentioned with regard to large packs should be excluded for small packs. On the contrary in this respect analogous application of the provision in question would appear to be indicated. In respect of the first question therefore it may be stated only that an exclusive right of the administration to produce and distribute the bands and labels which are essential for the organization of the market in eggs is without doubt compatible with Community law. This is not affected by the fact that a different procedure is adopted in other Member States and that there the production and distribution of the bands is partly left to private undertakings or bodies acting on behalf of the State. Moreover, the allegation which, incidentally, is strongly denied by the Italian Government, that the procedure for obtaining bands in Italy is extremely involved and lengthy does not lead to any other conclusion since such a consequence is not logically necessarily related to the fact that the State itself is responsible for the production and issue of the bands. Thus, if such a situation were in fact found to exist in a Member State it would not lead to the abolition of the system as a whole but it would be sufficient to proceed against the practical application with proceedings for a finding that the Treaty was thereby infringed. |
2. |
A second line of questions relates to the fact that in Italy the issue of the bands and labels is conditional on payment. It is necessary to examine from various aspects whether that is permissible under Community law.
|
3. |
In my opinion the questions raised by the Pretore in Venasca should be answered as follows:
The fact that the production and distribution of the bands and labels is not carried out by public authorities in all Member States and is not always made conditional on payment of a fee does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Member States which do adopt that course infringe the prohibition on discrimination. |
( 1 ) Translated from the German