OF 9 DECEMBER 1969 ON THE CO-ORDINATION AND STANDARDIZATION OF THE TREATMENT ACCORDED BY EACH MEMBER STATE TO IMPORTS OF FRUIT AND VEGETABLES FROM NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES ( JOURNAL OFFICIEL NO L 318 , P . 6 ) AND ARTICLES 1 AND 11 OF ANNEX I TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EEC AND SPAIN WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF REGULATION NO 1524/70 OF THE COUNCIL OF 20 JULY 1970 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION , SECOND SERIES , I . EXTERNAL RELATIONS ( 1 ), P . 269 ), RULED THAT IN 1970 AND 1971 MEMBER STATES COULD CONTINUE TO APPLY TO TABLE GRAPES OF SPANISH ORIGIN DURING THE PART OF THE YEAR BETWEEN 1 JULY AND 31 DECEMBER QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS IN EXISTENCE PRIOR TO REGULATION NO 2513/69 .
9HOWEVER , IT FOLLOWS FROM THE WORDING OF ARTICLE 1 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 2513/69 THAT THIS POWER OF THE MEMBER STATES WAS LIMITED TO DIRECT IMPORTATION FROM NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES OF THE PRODUCTS CONCERNED .
10THE SAID ARTICLE 1 COULD NOT HAVE COVERED THE APPLICATION BY A MEMBER STATE OF RESTRICTIONS OR PROHIBITIONS ON THE IMPORTATION OF PRODUCTS IN FREE CIRCULATION WITHIN THE COMMUNITY FROM OTHER MEMBER STATES , BECAUSE SUCH AN AMBIT WOULD HAVE CONSTITUTED A DEROGATION FROM THE FUNDAMENTAL RULES OF THE TREATY ON FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS .
11ONLY ARTICLE 115 OF THE TREATY GIVES THE COMMISSION THE POWER TO AUTHORIZE THE MEMBER STATES TO TAKE PROTECTIVE MEASURES , INTER ALIA IN THE FORM OF DEROGATIONS FROM THE PRINCIPLE OF FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS , AGAINST PRODUCTS ORIGINATING IN NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES AND PUT INTO FREE CIRCULATION IN ONE OF THE MEMBER STATES .
12EXCEPT WHERE THE SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 115 ARE FULFILLED , A MEMBER STATE CANNOT MAKE THE INTRODUCTION INTO ITS TERRITORY OF GOODS PUT INTO FREE CIRCULATION IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENT OF AN IMPORT LICENCE .
13IT FOLLOWS THAT THE ANSWER MUST BE THAT IN 1970 AND 1971 A MEMBER STATE DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROHIBIT THE IMPORTATION OF TABLE GRAPES OF SPANISH ORIGIN BUT COMING FROM ANOTHER MEMBER STATE IN WHICH THAT PRODUCT WAS IN FREE CIRCULATION WITHOUT PREVIOUSLY HAVING REQUESTED AND OBTAINED AUTHORIZATION FROM THE COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 115 OF THE TREATY .
QUESTION 2
14IN SO FAR AS THIS QUESTION IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS A SUPPLEMENT TO QUESTION 1 , THE ANSWER MUST BE THAT A CRIMINAL PENALTY ATTACHING TO A MEASURE OF RESTRICTION APPLIED TO THE IMPORTATION INTO ONE MEMBER STATE OF PRODUCTS PUT INTO FREE CIRCULATION IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE IS AS INCOMPATIBLE WITH COMMUNITY LAW AS THAT RESTRICTION ITSELF .
15HOWEVER , THE QUESTION CAN BE UNDERSTOOD AS SEEKING TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER COMMUNITY LAW PRECLUDES THE APPLICATION OF THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES LAID DOWN AGAINST FALSE DECLARATIONS WHERE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THOSE FALSE DECLARATIONS WERE MADE IN RELATION TO AN IMPORTATION WHICH , IN ITSELF , COULD NOT BE THE SUBJECT OF A