I —

In my opinion the answers' to the first question are in no way conclusive for a solution of the problem of interpretation which it is the Court's task to undertake. What do the Netherlands Government and the Commission in fact tell us? First of all, that at the time when Regulation No 234/68 was being drafted, there already existed in the Netherlands a regulation relating to the cultivation of bulbs in general, that is to say not only hyacinths but also a much more important production — of tulips and narcissi. This was the subject of a regulation of 16 July 1962. When in 1964-1965, the Commission prepared a project of a common organization of the market in floriculture, it was aware of this national system, certain aspects of which, it may be added, at that time induced it to consider the institution of a procedure under Article 169 of the Treaty. At any rate, that the Community authorities were not unaware of the existence of this system, even if the Netherlands Government had not given them any official information, can be treated as an established fact. There can be no doubt that during the preparatory stages of the future Regulation No 234/68 and particularly in the successive proposals which the Commission was called upon to prepare, the Dutch system was closely examined. But even the fact that the Commission at this stage of the preparatory work issued an opinion that certain national measures of intervention and of control of production could ‘be temporarily retained’ does not in any way lead me to believe that it had thus a priori admitted that such measures are compatible with the common organization of the market which in 1968 was to be instituted by Regulation No 234/68 of the Council. On this point, the Commission itself emphasizes in its written observations that if in one of the proposals which it was led to make in 1966, Article 6 (1) expressly tended to confer upon Member States the power of decreeing intervention measures and of laying down minimum export prices, this proposal did not however involve any reference — at any rate express — to the control of cultivation, that is to say, to the system of cultivation licences. It also emphasizes that the new proposal submitted to the Council on 23 February 1967 did not reproduce Article 6 of the former proposal. Rather curiously, from this account of the successive preparatory stages of the Regulation the Commission nonetheless concludes that this Community provision does not exclude the intervention of ‘supplementary measures’ — we are not told very clearly whether these ought to be national measures or measures taken by the Community institutions. I did not think I can follow them along this track. Firstly, because this would amount to interpreting Regulation No 234/68 through its preparatory stages, looking for the intentions, the motives of the Community legislator, a course which the Court has always refused to take. I believe that a more certain method in this respect would be to take the Regulation as it is — an objective text, binding in its entirety and of course having direct effect — and to base my interpretation upon the specifix wording of its provisions and their general tenor. Next, because this Regulation does not tend towards a gradual setting up of a Common organization of the market in products of floriculture, which during a transitional period would leave room for certain national measures, but in fact has the appearance, of tending towards the bringing about of a definitive organization of the market in question, even if less complete, or shall we say, less ‘perfect’ than other texts of an analogous nature. Finally, because the extent of its Article 10, which in particular excludes quantitative restrictions in trade within the Community, does not seem to be affected by the ‘a posteriori’ explanations which have just been given to us, both by the Commission and by the Government of the Netherlands. To summarize this first point, I therefore consider that the fact that the Commission and the Council had been aware of the Dutch national regulations relating to the production of bulbs for flower growing and also the fact that Regulation No 234/68 did not expressly prohibit the system of cultivation licences, does not allow the conclusion that ‘a contrario’ and implicitly the Council had admitted that such a system was compatible with the setting up of a common organization of the market. On the contrary, in line with my first opinion, I found an interesting element, referred to in the information given by Mr Van Haaster's legal adviser when addressing the Court. The latter explained that during 1966, that is to say at the very time when Regulation No 234/68 was being drafted, the competent Dutch authorities decided to abolish, as at 1 January 1967, the regulations relating to the cultivation of tulip and narcissus bulbs, no doubt because they considered that these provisions could not be kept in existence when there was a common organization of the market which shortly was to take the place of earlier national provisions. The fact that as regards hyacinth bulbs the national system of production control should have continued remains inexplicable, or at any rate unexplained. Perhaps it is simply an omission, though in that case it is difficult to understand that a new regulation should have been passed in 1971, that is to say after the publication of the Community provision. But in the final resort it is in my view of little importance. Thus to continue cultivation licences solely for hyacinth bulbs is certainly not sufficient to confer upon this system a stamp of compatibility with Community law.