2.

The complaints which the Commission makes against the French Republic are of two kinds: the use of its own method of analysis to detect the presence of common wheat in pasta products; and the application of certain “tolerances” to the results of analyses carried out according to that method. I shall begin with the first complaint, providing some details of the legal rules in question, that is to say the French rules, of course, and also the Italian rules, which interest us because, according to the Commission, it is pasta products imported from Italy which are impeded by the rules at issue. In France a Law of 3 July 1934 (Journal Officiel de la République Française of 6 July 1934, p. 6787) provides that pasta products must be manufactured “exclusively from pure durum wheatmeal”. That provision was subsequently incorporated in the Decree of 27 May 1957, amended by the Decree of 6 December 1974 (Journal Officiel of 12 December 1974, p. 12369), in which it is provided that the exclusive use of durum wheat is to be determined by a method of analysis to be fixed by the administration (Article 8). The method in question was developed by Professor Feillet in Montpellier and adopted by the Decree of 13 August 1974 (Journal Officiel 12 of 15 January 1975, p. 639). That decree provides that the analyses must be carried out by laboratories responsible for carrying out technical research to assist the public authorities in combatting fraud. As regards Italy, the rule that pasta products may only be manufactured from durum wheatmeal was laid down in Law No 580 of 4 July 1967 on the manufacture and marketing of cereals, flours, wheat and pasta products (Gazzetta Ufficiale 189 of 29 July 1967, p. 4182; Gazzetta Ufficiale Suppi. Ord. 4 of 5 January 1980, p. 3). The method used by the Italian administration was developed by Professor Resmini of the University of Milan. The Commission relies principally on the contention that, to verify whether pasta products have been manufactured in accordance with Italian law, the method to be used is that applied in Italy. That argument is presented as the corollary of a principle laid down by this Court in connection with the interpretation of Article 30 and which can be expressed as follows: a product which may be marketed in its country of origin because it meets the requirements of the law of that country must for that reason alone be allowed into circulation in the other Member States. The Commission infers from that that the inspection carried out by the importing country with a view to ensuring compliance with the substantive rules of the country of origin must be carried out in accordance with the implementing rules in force in the latter country, and, as I have stated, it concludes that the French authorities must make use of the Resmini method. I am convinced by that argument. It is in conflict with the case-law of the Court and produces illogical results. The case-law: As the Italian Government, which intervened in support of the conclusions of France, pointed out in its observations, the Court, in 1975, accepted the validity of a legal presumption of enrichment of wine accepted only by the importing country. The Member States, it stated, must take effective measures of control to ensure compliance with Community rules regarding enrichment, acidification and de-acidification of wine, whilst retaining “the power to choose the measures which they consider appropriate for that purpose” (judgments of 30 September 1985 in Joined Cases 89/74 and 18 and 19/75, Arnand, [1975] ECR 1203, and in Joined Cases 10 and 14/75, Lahaille, [1975] ECR 1053). If importing countries can use their own method of analysis in a sector (viticulture) in which a common organization of the market has been established, then there is all the more reason, it seems to me, to recognize the existence of a similar power where, as in the case of pasta products, no such organization exists. The results: The Commission's argument presupposes that each Member State should set up a department which is able to subject imported goods to the same technical inspections as those which are (or may be) imposed on them in their country of origin, that is to say, it must be able to apply as many methods of analysis as there arc other Member States. Is such a demand reasonable? And, most importantly, what advantages does it offer? In reply to a question which I put to to him, Professor Resmini told us during the oral procedure that the method of analysis which he has developed is reliable only if it is carried out by highly specialized technicians. I do not think I am wrong in presuming that the methods in use elsewhere are subject to the same requirement. However, since such a high degree of specialization in relating to nine methods of analysis, either existing or potential, is a practically unattainable objective, the solution proposed by the applicant would lead to unreliable results. This would be the opposite to what was intended. The true position is therefore different. In a matter such as this, the methods do not have to be identical. What matters is that the results should be equivalent, and in this instance it is unquestionably the case that, as long as they are correctly applied, the French and Italian methods produce equivalent results. The governments in question have both stated that to be the case and, during the oral procedure, the Commission unreservedly admitted it. This is the origin of the Commission's alternative complaint. Even on the assumption, it contends, that the French Government was entitled to use its own method, the French authorities used it in a manner which was incorrect or, at least, unsatisfactory. In that sense at least, France has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30. That complaint is also unfounded. To demonstrate this, it is unnecessary to consider whether the French authorities are in fact unreliable when using the Feillet method. It is sufficient to observe that they have experience of it, while they have none of the Resmini method. Thus, if they are unreliable when using the first method, they will be all the more so if they are obliged to use the second.