OF THE EEC TREATY .
2 THE FIRST QUESTION IS WHETHER THE IMPOSITION OF A PECUNIARY CHARGE ON EXPORTS OF FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PRODUCTS, FOR THE BENEFIT OF A PUBLIC BODY DISTINCT FROM THE STATE, FALLS WITHIN THE PROHIBITION OF CHARGES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT IF THE REVENUE THEREFROM IS USED TO COVER EXPENSES RELATING TO QUALITY CONTROL AT THE FRONTIER, THE GRANT OF CERTIFICATES OF INSPECTION AND THE AFFIXING OF A NATIONAL EXPORT STAMP .
3 ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 9 OF THE EEC TREATY, THE COMMUNITY IS TO BE BASED UPON A CUSTOMS UNION INVOLVING THE PROHIBITION BETWEEN MEMBER STATES OF CUSTOMS DUTIES ON IMPORTS AND EXPORTS AND OF ALL CHARGES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT .
IN PURSUANCE OF ARTICLE 16, MEMBER STATES ARE TO ABOLISH BETWEEN THEMSELVES CUSTOMS DUTIES ON EXPORTS AND CHARGES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT BY THE END OF THE FIRST STAGE AT THE LATEST .
4 IN LAYING DOWN PROVISIONS FOR THEIR ABOLITION, THE TREATY DOES NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH DUTIES AND CHARGES WERE INTRODUCED OR THE USES TO WHICH THE REVENUE OBTAINED THEREFROM IS PUT .
THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS PROHIBITION IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT ANY PECUNIARY CHARGE - HOWEVER SMALL - IMPOSED ON GOODS BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT THEY CROSS A FRONTIER CONSTITUTES AN OBSTACLE TO THE MOVEMENT OF SUCH GOODS, WHICH IS AGGRAVATED BY THE RESULTING ADMINISTRATIVE FORMALITIES .
5 CONSEQUENTLY, ANY PECUNIARY CHARGE, WHATEVER ITS DESIGNATION AND MODE OF APPLICATION, WHICH IS IMPOSED UNILATERALLY ON DOMESTIC GOODS BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT THEY CROSS A FRONTIER, AND WHICH IS NOT A CUSTOMS DUTY IN THE STRICT SENSE, CONSTITUTES A CHARGE HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLES 9, 12, 13 AND 16 OF THE TREATY, EVEN IF IT IS NOT IMPOSED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE STATE .
6 ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE THAT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES A SPECIFIC SERVICE ACTUALLY RENDERED MAY FORM THE CONSIDERATION FOR A POSSIBLE PROPORTIONAL PAYMENT FOR THE SERVICE IN QUESTION, THIS MAY ONLY APPLY IN SPECIFIC CASES WHICH CANNOT LEAD TO THE CIRCUMVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 9 AND 16 OF THE TREATY .
7 A QUALITY CONTROL CARRIED OUT BY A MEMBER STATE ON PRODUCTS FOR EXPORT ALONE, COUPLED WITH A PROHIBITION ON THE EXPORT OF PRODUCTS WHICH DO NOT MEET THE STANDARDS OF QUALITY PROVIDED FOR BY NATIONAL LAW, CANNOT, IN ITSELF, CONSTITUTE A SERVICE PROVIDED FOR THE EXPORTER, EVEN IF SUCH AN OBSTACLE TO THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS WERE TO BE CONSIDERED LEGAL IN THE ABSENCE OF COMMUNITY RULES AS TO QUALITY .
8 EVEN IF THE MAINTENANCE OF THE REPUTATION OF FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PRODUCTS OF A MEMBER STATE BY THE INDIRECT EXPEDIENT OF A CERTIFICATE OF INSPECTION AND THE AFFIXING OF A NATIONAL EXPORT STAMP IS CAPABLE OF ENCOURAGING EXPORTS OF NATIONAL PRODUCTS, THIS BENEFIT RELATES TO THE GENERAL INTEREST OF ALL EXPORTERS, SO THAT THE INDIVIDUAL INTEREST OF EACH OF THEM IS SO ILL-DEFINED THAT A CHARGE IMPOSED IN PAYMENT