, ALTHOUGH NO LONGER LEGAL TENDER IN THAT STATE ARE PROTECTED AS COIN FROM DESTRUCTION IN THAT STATE?
2 . IF SO , CAN THE QUANTITY AND MANNER IN WHICH AND THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH SUCH COINS ARE TRADED RESULT IN SUCH COINS CEASING TO BE WITHIN THE TERM ' ' CAPITAL ' ' IN PART TWO , TITLE III , CHAPTER 4?
3 . DO THE PROVISIONS OF PART TWO , TITLE III , CHAPTER 4 OF THE TREATY OF ROME APPLY TO SUCH OF THE AFORESAID COINS AS ARE ' ' CAPITAL ' ' TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE PROVISIONS OF PART TWO , TITLE I , CHAPTER 2 OF THE TREATY?
4 . IF THE ANSWERS TO ALL OR ANY OF THE ABOVE QUESTIONS ARE SUCH AS TO DETERMINE THAT THE ARTICLES IN THIS CASE FALL WITHIN PART TWO , TITLE I , CHAPTER 2 , DOES THE TERM ' ' PUBLIC POLICY ' ' IN ARTICLE 36 OF THE TREATY OF ROME MEAN THAT A MEMBER STATE MAY SEEK TO JUSTIFY RESTRICTIONS ON :
( A ) THE IMPORT OF GOLD COINS ON EITHER OR BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :
( I ) TO PREVENT THE DRAIN ON ITS BALANCE OF PAYMENTS ,
( II)TO PREVENT THE SPECULATION AND HOARDING OF UNPRODUCTIVE ASSETS ,
( B)THE EXPORT OF ITS OWN SILVER ALLOY COINAGE ON ANY OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :
( I)TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF CURRENT COINS FOR USE OF THE PUBLIC ,
( II)TO ENSURE THAT ANY PROFIT RESULTING FROM ANY INCREASE IN THE VALUE OF METAL CONTENT OF THE COIN ACCRUES TO THE MEMBER STATE RATHER THAN TO AN INDIVIDUAL ,
( III)TO PREVENT THE DESTRUCTION OF ITS COINS OCCURRING OUTSIDE ITS JURISDICTION , WHICH IF IT OCCURRED WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION WOULD BE A CRIMINAL OFFENCE?
19AN EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONS ASKED SHOWS THAT , EVEN IF THESE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN FORMULATED SO AS TO LAY EMPHASIS ON THE DESCRIPTION OF THE COINS IN QUESTION AS ' ' CAPITAL ' ' , THEIR ACTUAL PURPOSE IS TO FIND OUT WHETHER THESE COINS ARE GOODS FALLING WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 30 TO 37 OF THE TREATY OR CONSTITUTE A MEANS OF PAYMENT FALLING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF OTHER PROVISIONS .
20UNDERSTOOD IN THIS WAY , THESE QUESTIONS MUST BE CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE GENERAL SYSTEM OF THE TREATY .
21AN ANALYSIS OF THIS SYSTEM SHOWS THAT THE RULES RELATING TO THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS AND , IN PARTICULAR , ARTICLES 30 ET SEQ . CONCERNING THE ELIMINATION OF QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS AND MEASURES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT , MUST BE CONSIDERED NOT ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE SPECIFIC RULES RELATING TO TRANSFERS OF CAPITAL BUT WITH REFERENCE TO ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY RELATING TO MONETARY TRANSFERS , WHICH CAN BE EFFECTED FOR A GREAT VARIETY OF PURPOSES , OF WHICH CAPITAL TRANSFERS ONLY COMPRISE ONE SPECIFIC CATEGORY .
22ALTHOUGH ARTICLES 67 TO 73 OF