1.

In relation to the first question I must first clarify two points. It is clear from the context that the phrase ‘charges due to the Community’ is not to be understood literally as relating to charges actually payable to the Community. That was not the case at that time as regards monetary compensatory amounts. It can therefore only refer to charges imposed under Community law. Furthermore, it is clear from the facts that the question may be confined to the problem of the grant of exemption on objective grounds of natural justice, in particular, in cases where the imposition of the charge is alleged to conflict with the aim of the law and is contrary to the intention of the legislature. In the present case, therefore, it is unnecessary to discuss the question whether an exemption may be granted on grounds of a subjective nature or by reason of the effects of provisions of a formal and procedural nature. The plaintiff in the main action suggests that a positive answer be given to the question when understood in that way. It regards it as important that the Community regulation only contains an authority to levy monetary compensation. If follows, therefore, that the duties imposed in pursuance of the German regulation of 14 May 1971 on the imposition of a compensatory amount to protect German agriculture were charges governed by national law. It further follows that the grant of an exemption from such charges on grounds of natural justice is governed by German procedural law. As regards the procedural law it is established (Case 33/76, Rewe-Zentralfinanz AG and Rewe-Zentral AG v Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland, judgment of 16 December 1976), that the Member States may develop their own procedural law so long as no Community rules have been adopted. Reference must also be made to the case-law concerning binding customs tariff notices which may be issued under German law. Such notices have been declared to be lawful even though they may in certain circumstances result in divergencies from the tariffs required under the Common Customs Tariff. An exemption on grounds of natural justice from charges provided for by Community law is a similar type of measure adopted in implementation of the law. A contrary view is held by the Commission and by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany. They — and in particular the Commission — maintain that the Member States have no power to adopt regulations governing exemption on objective grounds of natural justice since the Community has made use of the powers attributed to it by the Treaty and has fixed all the conditions necessary for the imposition of charges. In those circumstances it cannot be accepted that the Member States may, by the adoption of national measures, affect the scope of the Comunity rules. That principle has already been stressed on many occasions in comparable cases. In order to assess that difference of opinion I consider it necessary to begin with the findings made in the judgment in the abovementioned Case 5/73. In that judgment it was emphasized that the Community rules on monetary compensatory amounts, which are to be found in Regulation No 974/71, were adopted on the basis of Article 103 of the EEC Treaty, that it had been necessary to avoid the adoption of unilateral measures and that the measures adopted pursuant to Article 103 were essential to protect the aims and machinery of the common agricultural policy. Since the validity of the Community rules, and in particular the implementing provisions adopted by the Commission under Regulation No 974/71, has not been called in question it is clear that the Community institutions made a proper use of the powers conferred on them by the Treaty. It must also be remembered that although Regulation No 974/71 only provided the Member States with an authorization, Article 7 expressly stipulated that partial or temporary use might not be made of the authoritzation provided for in the regulation; it was therefore impossible for exemptions to be granted by means of national measures. Finally, it must not be forgotten that in its judgment in Case 5/73, in which it considered the validity of Regulation No 974/71 and the Commission regulation which fixed compensatory amounts for the various products, the Court expressly held that no objection could be made to the fact that a single overall criterion had been selected for fixing the compensatory amounts. It was expressly stated that the fact that the compensatory amounts do not always correspond to the effects in the monetary field of the revaltuation of the German mark does not constitute a violation of the principle of proportionality. As against that the plaintiff in the main action is now applying for an exemption on grounds of natural justice from the compensatory amounts fixed in accordance with Community law. In support of the application of national rules of natural justice it refers to the general purpose of the Community legislation and, in that respect — as the Commission has rightly pointed out — its arguments are to a large extent the same as those put forward in Case 5/73, inter alia, that the revaluation of the German mark had no influence on the transaction concluded by the plaintiff since that contract had been concluded on the basis of the mark. Thus, what is at issue is nothing less than the modification of a Community rule which forms the subject of a directly applicable regulation which — as is stated in the judgment in Case 43/72 (judgment of 24 October 1973, Merkur-Außenhandels-GmbH v Commission of the EEC [1973] II ECR 1055) — is of global application. This would amount to interfering in the area of application of that regulation and to challenging to a certain extent the application of Community law. In my opinion it is not at all clear how the foregoing can be reconciled with the rules governing the distribution of powers between the Community and the Member States, as well as with the precedence of Community law and the principle that it shall be given uniform application. In this connexion the plaintiff's reference to the judgment in Case 33/76, in which it was held that in the absence of any Community rules it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to determine questions concerning procedural law, is clearly inappropriate. The present case does not concern the acceptance of consequences with regard to substantive law as a result of a failure to comply with national provisions of a formal and procedural nature: it concerns an . exemption on grounds of natural justice solely on the basis of considerations of substantive law, that is to say, with reference to the general purpose of the law in question. The plaintiff's reference to the case-law on the admissibility of binding customs tariff notices issued by the national customs authorities (Case 30/71, Kurt Siemers & Co. v Hauptzollamt Bad Reichenhall, judgment of 24 November 1971, [1971] II ECR 919) is no more convincing. Such notices merely constitute an anticipatory application of Community law, in the process of which errors may naturally occur, while an exemption granted on grounds of natural justice from charges fixed in accordance with Community law would constitute a derogation from that law and would result in modifying it Against that it is useful to bear in mind other judgments given in relation to comparable circumstances which have ruled out the application of national laws on natural justice or of other national rules which depart from Community law. This was true of Case 31/70 (Deutsche Getreide- und Futtermittel-Handels-gesellschaft mbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Altona, judgment of 15 December 1970, [1970] II ECR 1055) which concerned the problem of the imposition of levies on maize which had lost value as a result of water damage. In that case the reference by the Netherlands Government to the possibility under Netherlands law of reducing the rate of charge on grounds of natural justice was impliedly but none the less clearly stated to be irrelevant. Reference must also be made to the judgment in Case 18/72 (NV Granaria Graaninkopmaatschappij v Produktschap v Produktschap voor Veevoeder, judgment of 30 November 1972, [1972] II ECR 1163). In that judgment it was stated quite clearly that the national authorities could not apply national law in order to grant exemption from levies on grounds of natural justice. The judgment states unequivocally that it is incompatible with the distribution of powers between the Member States and the Community for a Member State of affect the application of Community law by means of national measures. Finally, let me refer to the judgment in Case 50/76 (Amsterdam Bulb BV v Produktschap voor Siergewassen, judgment of 2 February 1977) in which — admittedly in a case of a rather different nature — the Court ruled that national authorities could not authorize any derogation from the minimum prices fixed under Community law. As a result of all the foregoing I consider that a negative answer must be given to the first question and that it must be held that, as regards monetary compensatory amounts, which are entirely governed by Community rules, a Member State has no power to adopt rules providing for exemption on grounds of natural justice and that it is irrelevant in that connexion whether the charges are payable to the Community or to the Member States.