22.

Those arguments cannot be accepted. It is possible to extract from the Court's decision in General Motors the essential criteria for determining whether or not a fee of the type in question is excessive. The Court held that once the dominant position occupied by the undertaking in question on the market in the supply of services necessary for the registration of the vehicle in Belgium has been defined. ‘it is possible that the holder of the exclusive position ... may abuse the market by fixing a price — for a service which it is alone in a position to provide — which is to the detriment of any person acquiring a motor vehicle imported from another Member State and subject to the approval procedure’. The Court added that ‘Such an abuse might lie, inter alia, in the imposition of a price which is excessive in relation to the economic value of the service provided and which has the effect of curbing parallel imports by neutralizing the possibly more favourable level of prices applying in other sales areas in the Community ... ’ (Case 26/75, cited above, paragraphs 11 and 12 of the decision). Considering the question in the light of ‘all the factors which gave rise to the decision of the Commission’, the Court held that the fee charged to certain individuals‘was excessive in relation to the economic value of the service provided by way of the approval procedure’ (Ibid. paragraphs 15 and 16). I do not consider it necessary to calculate that amount. As BL correctly pointed out, the circumstances of this case cannot be compared, from that point of view, with those in Case 26/75. On the other hand, it is necessary, to seek to identify, in the light of all the relevant information, the factors contributing to the economic value of the work involved in the issue of a certificate of conformity. Remember that the issue of a certificate of conformity for a left-hand-drive Metro imported from the continent requires: (i) the identification of the vehicle by its chassis number, which makes it possible to ensure that the vehicle in question conforms to the left-hand-drive version of the original type vehicle approved; and (ii) an inspection to ensure that the four basic alterations necessary for putting a vehicle on the road in Great Britain have been carried out. As BL expressly conceded at the hearing, it is not necessary to carry out a vehicle inspection of the type required where approval is sought for a vehicle which has been converted to right-hand-drive. The conversion takes place subsequently and, as has been seen, does not affect the validity of the certificate of conformity. As BL informed the Commission in a telex message of 9 February 1983, the fact that type approval for the different left-hand-drive models had just been reestablished therefore meant that: ‘There is a simple, quick and inexpensive route whereby an importer can obtain the necessary information to comply with NTA regulations’. The only reservation that I would express in that respect concerns BL's assessment of the cost of the operation. Although at that stage the fee had been reduced to UKL 100, it was still disproportionate to the service provided. To establish, by the series number, that the vehicle was manufactured by BL at a date at which an NTA certificate existed for the reference version, and then to ascertain, on the basis of an invoice issued by one of its approved distributors that the headlight beams have been redirected, that the fog lamp and wing mirror have been placed on the right, and finally that the speedometer has been calibrated in miles, demands two small operations requiring a minimum amount of the manufacturer's time, in particular where, as is the case with BL, the manufacturer has centralized the competent departments by creating a single type approval department. Those factors are sufficient in themselves to show how low the economic value of the service in question is. It is not easy to carry out a comparative analysis of the fees charged by British manufacturers, since BL is alone in having obtained type approval in Great Britain for left-hand-drive versions. For that reason the figures submitted by BL are not conclusive, since they incorporate the costs of the inspection of the vehicle converted to right-hand-drive, costs which are not incurred in the certification of left-hand-drive vehicles. The figures submitted by the Commission, which were supplied by the SMMT, show that during the period in question, namely until March 1983, fees charged for the approval of re-imported vehicles varied from nought to UKL 50 and, since that time, have not exceeded UKL 75. In view of the particular circumstances of BL, that can only be an indication. Nevertheless, other factors, which were moreover stressed by the Commission in its decision, highlight the disproportion between the fees charged by BL and the economic value of the service provided. As the Commission correctly pointed out, the cost of issuing a certificate of conformity certainly does not represent a decisive factor in setting the level of the fee. The successive reduction of the fee to UKL 100 and then at its present level of UKL 50, in other words an amount three times lower than the original amount, is revealing in that respect. What is more, the difference which existed between the fee charged to private individuals (UKL 100) and that charged to dealers (UKL 150) is equally significant. The justification advanced by BL — that the profit margin of the dealers made it possible for dealers to meet the cost more easily — would seem to confirm that the fee was not devised to cover the real costs but was calculated according to the financial capabilities of those seeking approval. The abusive nature of such conduct is obvious. On the same basis, it is difficult to understand what could justify the difference between the fee charged for left-hand-drive vehicles —UKL 150 to UKL 100 —and that of UKL 25 charged for right-hand-drive vehicles. In both cases an NTA certificate exists; the only difference relates to the basic alterations to be carried out on left-hand-drive versions. I cannot see how the simple verification of an operation paid for by the consumer can justify the charging of a sum which is six times or indeed only four times greater. I would add finally that BL admitted that those fees were a result of pressure exerted by its dealers. That provides confirmation that they were part of a deliberate policy to deter parallel imports. The availability to private individuals of the alternative procedure for personal importation cannot affect the substance of the infringement committed by BL. As I have already stressed, the legal conditions required to qualify for that exemption mean that certain private individuals could not or would not use that procedure. The case of Mrs Fox, to which I have already referred, may be an example. In particular, the existence of that alternative in no way excuses the excessive nature of the fees charged for motor-vehicle dealers, expressly referred to by the Commission in its decision. Clearly, in view of the problems relating to the importation from the continent of a vehicle which must be approved and subsequently converted, consumers will normally address themselves to dealers. For them, a fee of UKL 150 or UKL 100, in the light of the circumstances and the considerations which I have mentioned, has particular deterrent value because such a fee is liable to negate the price advantage derived from the importation of left-hand-drive vehicles.