5.

In fact, Denkavit maintains that the directive does encompass protection against pathogenic organisms. It contends that the purpose of Article 3 is to ensure the marketing of compound feeding-stuffs for animals that do ‘not represent a danger to animal or human health’. Furthermore, that purpose is consistent with the general objective of all the legislation relating to feeding-stuffs for animals, namely to ensure the use of feeding-stuffs of good quality. It takes the view that such an interpretation of Article 3 is confirmed by Articles 1, 4, 8 and 12 of the directive. Unlike Directive 80/502 of 6 May 1980 ( 6 ) amending Directive 74/63 concerning undesirable substances and products in feeding-stuffs ( 7 ) and Directive 82/471 of 30 June 1982 concerning certain products used in animal nutrition, ( 8 ) Article 1 of Directive 79/373 does not expressly exclude provisions concerning pathogenic microorganisms. In fact Directive 82/471, by providing that it is to apply ‘without prejudice to Community provisions concerning: ... (e) pathogenic microorganisms in feeding-stuffs’, necessarily refers to preexisting Community provisions, which, according to Denkavit, can only be provisions of Directive 79/373. Article 4 of Directive 79/373 enables contamination to be prevented by providing for the marketing of feeding-stuffs in sealed packages or containers. Article 8 serves the same purpose by authorizing Member States to maintain national measures restricting the marketing of feeding-stuffs obtained from or free from certain ingredients. Finally, Article 12 provides for appropriate controls by authorizing the Member States to inspect by sampling. The absence from the directive of provisions referring expressly to protection against pathogenic organisms does not, according to Denkavit, contradict the interpretation proposed by it, in view of the general nature of the obligation laid down by Article 3 and in view of the system of inspection provided for in Article 12. In the light of that analysis, Denkavit concludes that Directive 79/373 contains an exhaustive statement of the law. It states that in none of its provisions is it contemplated that imports of compound feeding-stuffs for animals are to be subject to restrictions of the type imposed by the German authorities on health grounds. It points out that Article 9 of the directive prohibits Member States from subjecting feeding-stuffs to marketing restrictions ‘other than those provided for by this Directive’. It concludes from that provision that after 1 January 1981, the German authorities were no longer able to subject its imports from the Netherlands to the controls provided for. In its view, imports of feeding-stuffs for animals should be effected from that date without any restrictions: pursuant to Directive 79/373, the exporting State guarantees that the animal feeding-stuffs produced in its territory are harmless; the importing State may only carry out those checks authorized by Article 12. Only where the feeding-stuffs are contaminated may the relevant national rules be applied. In the alternative, Denkavit states that even if the directive is not to be regarded as an exhaustive statement of the law, as it contends, recourse to Article 36 is not justified since its entry into force marked the completion of the programme of harmonization announced by the Council in its resolution of 22 July 1974. ( 9 )