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. (a) With regard to the fundamental question it may be stated that the Community regulations contain no provision directly concerning the cost. It is not possible to deduce from them any obligation for the Member States to issue the bands and labels free of charge nor is there to be found therein any provision regarding payment by the packing centres for the acquisition of the bands and labels. In any event I myself find unconvincing the view of the Italian Government that the wording of Article 17 of Regulation No 2772/75, in particular in the light of a comparison with similar provisions (Article 17 of Regulation No 1619/68), supports the assumption that provision is made for payment for the issue of the bands and labels by the public authorities. In my view in this respect as well the Commission has given the correct basis for a solution in its reference to the fact that under the Community regulations the arrangements to be made for the necessary supervision of their application are left to the Member States. From this it follows indeed that the Member States can also regulate the question of financing. For that reason I regard the fact that in Italy provision is made for the issue of the bands against payment as not being incompatible with Community law in particular as it is clear that the price does not only relate to the cost of production and distribution of the bands but — as is clear from Article 4 of Law No 419 — it also relates to financing the checks, the cost of which can naturally not be imposed only on those in whose case they are effected more or less by chance on the basis of random sampling. On the other hand I do not think it is necessary in justifying the payment to rely on considerations established in the decided cases in another context, in particular in examining import charges, whereby the question hinges on whether a pecuniary payment to the administration is in return for a special service provided by the administration for the person paying the charge. In my view therefore, it is not necessary to examine whether supervision of compliance with marketing standards which, according to the preambles to the Community regulations, may serve to facilitate the sale of the product, can be regarded as a special service by the administration such as to justify a financial charge or whether, as the applicant contends, that is not the case as the service by the State (issue of the bands) is obligatory because the undertakings are in any event obliged to comply with the marketing standards and because the supervision is not carried out at the time of issuing the labels, so that the affixing of the bands is not carried out under administrative supervision but the checks are rather carried out by way of random sampling after labelling and serve only to determine whether the goods correspond to the labels. (b) In my opinion this fundamental statement is not affected by the principle of the direct applicability of Community regulations to which reference was also made in the questions. It is true that it has been established in the decided cases that by virtue of this principle national implementing provisions must not reproduce the content of the relevant Community regulations as has apparently been done in the said Italian Law No 419. However it is equally clear that that part of the Italian Law is not relevant in the main proceedings. In so far however as the Italian provisions regulate the production and issue of the bands for payment, the Italian Government acted correctly in the context of powers which are conferred by Community rules on the Member States with regard to the arrangements for and financing of the supervision required for the common organization of the egg market. (c) In any event however an important part of this fundamental finding is that the payment charged must not be higher than is necessary to finance, on the one hand, the production and distribution of the bands and, on the other, the necessary supervision. Only to that extent is the charge justified from the point of view of Community law. As we heard in the course of the proceedings this matter has already given rise to an exchange of letters between the Commission and the Italian Government in 1977. I would also call attention to the statements of the Italian Government in the present proceedings with particular regard to the costs of producing the bands and the extent of the costs incurred with regard to the supervision in respect of which outside staff are also relied on. From them the impression may be gained that the charges, which have remained unchanged since the entry into force of the Italian rules, were possibly too high at the beginning. This can hardly be the case for 1976, when revenue of Lit 508 million compares with costs of Lit 570 million, or for 1977 when, according to the statements of the Italian Government, revenue from the sale of bands amounted to Lit 521 million while the costs incurred with regard to the supervision amounted to Lit 660 million. Admittedly this matter cannot in the last resort be resolved in proceedings for a preliminary ruling. In its ruling the Court of Justice must restrict itself to the aforementioned finding of principle and leave the question whether national practice is in accordance with it to the court in the main proceedings. (d) We also have to consider whether the Italian rules conflict with the prohibition on discrimination contained in Article 7 of the EEC Treaty or in quite general terms against the principle of equality of treatment. These matters are referred to by the applicant in the main proceedings who points out that in other Member States the production and distribution of the bands is not carried out by State agencies in return for payment but is left to the persons marketing the goods. In this respect the decisive factor is not so much that apparently, contrary to the applicant's assumption, in France and in the Federal Republic of Germany the cost of the bands at least must be paid. Nor is it necessary now to go further into the question whether Article 7 of the EEC Treaty, which is the primary relevant provision and according to which discrimination on grounds of nationality is prohibited, is applicable even where a Member State treats its own nationals less favourably. The decisive factor is in fact that the application of the Italian provisions does not depend on nationality but only on the place where operations are carried on. If, however, the Member States adopt differing provisions in implementation of the Community rules — as is at present not excluded — the fact that their application is in each case restricted to the territory of the relevant Member State, viewed correctly, does not constitute a situation covered by Article 7 of the EEC Treaty; in this respect it is rather the Community which must if necessary strive to achieve harmonization. Furthermore with regard to the view that the general principle of equality of treatment, as laid down with regard to the agricultural rules in Article 40 (3) of the EEC Treaty, is infringed because higher production costs are incurred by the Italian producers by virtue of the Italian rules, this consideration also cannot lead to any different conclusion. In this respect it is sufficient to refer to the fact that under the structure of the organization of the market in eggs the Member States have a margin of discretion in the formulation of their implementing provisions. In addition, as the Commission has correctly pointed out, the fact should not be overlooked that production costs are in any event influenced by other non-uniform factors. Therefore in respect of this question it may be stated with certainty that differing costs of supervision and differences in the relevant rules can hardly be brought within the scope of the prohibitions on discrimination set out in the Treaty. (e) There remains finally only to examine the applicant's contention that national measures, as has been held in numerous decided cases, must not run contrary to the objects and functioning of a common organization of the market. It is alleged that such a detrimental effect exists in the present case. The organization of the market in eggs is characterized by marketing standards, that is, common rules relating to competition. They alone are applicable to marketing and therefore a raising of the threshold of profitability by means of additional conditions is not permissible. Yet the Italian measures, in reality, he states, constitute such a raising of the threshold. Seen in their true light the charges for the bands in the applicant's view alter the common marketing standards and have the ultimate consequence that more restrictive marketing standards are applicable in Italy. In the light of what has been stated above it is not possible to accept this view either. In this respect it is sufficient to reflect that under the structure of the organization of the market in eggs the nature and manner of supervision of its practical application is left to the Member States. Financial charges resulting therefrom cannot therefore be regarded as additional conditions which are not permissible under the organization of the market in eggs, subject, of course, to the condition that they serve only to cover the costs. In this connexion as well, reference may be made once again to the fact that in any event production costs in the Member States are not equal and that the organization of the market in eggs, which did not adopt price rules, does not seek uniformity in this regard. Finally in this connexion it is also relevant — even taking into account the corrections made by the applicant in the oral proceedings — to consider the statements of the Italian Government in its detailed calculations with regard to the influence of the cost of the bands on production costs with regard, in particular, to the large packs, which are most commonly used, and what the Italian Government has shown with regard to the trend of exports from Italy in recent years. Accordingly it is also impossible to claim that the objects of the common organization of the market in eggs are infringed or that its functioning is detrimentally affected by the Italian rules relating to the costs of the bands.