DECISIONS HAVING LEGISLATIVE CHARACTER .
9 EXERCISING THE POWERS CONFERRED ON IT BY THE NETHERLANDS LEGISLATION THE PRODUKTSCHAP ADOPTED THE AFORESAID ORDER , ARTICLE 2 OF WHICH PROVIDED THAT FISHING FOR HERRING IN THE NORTHERN AND CENTRAL PARTS OF THE NORTH SEA WITHOUT A FISHING LICENCE VALID FOR 1983 WAS PROHIBITED . ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 5 ( B ), A LICENCE COULD BE ISSUED ONLY ON THE CONDITION THAT THE HERRING CAUGHT COULD BE SALTED AND GUTTED ON BOARD THE VESSEL FOR WHICH THE LICENCE WAS REQUESTED . ARTICLE 6 PROVIDED THAT THE PRODUKTSCHAP COULD WITHDRAW A LICENCE IF THOSE PROVISIONS WERE NOT OBSERVED . FINALLY , ARTICLE 9 PROVIDED THAT ANY HERRING CAUGHT HAD TO BE EITHER SALTED AND GUTTED OR DEEP-FROZEN ON BOARD . ANY OTHER TREATMENT OR PROCESSING OF THE HERRING WAS THEREFORE PROHIBITED .
10 ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL COURT , THE OBJECT OF THE AFORESAID ORDER WAS TO RESTRICT THE LIMITED QUOTA ALLOCATED TO THE NETHERLANDS TO THE LANDING OF MAATJESHARING . THE PRODUKTSCHAP THUS SOUGHT TO MAINTAIN THE NETHERLANDS FISHING TRADITION REQUIRING NETHERLANDS FISHERMEN TO LAND DURING JUNE AND JULY A LARGE QUANTITY OF MAATJESHARING TO SATISFY NETHERLANDS CONSUMER DEMAND . IN ALLOCATING THE QUOTA TO THE TRADITIONAL HERRING FISHERMEN THE PRODUKTSCHAP INTENDED TO PREVENT THE QUOTA FROM BEING USED FOR FISHING FOR HERRING WHICH WOULD NOT BE LANDED AS MAATJESHARING BUT AS STRONGLY SALTED , UNGUTTED HERRING .
11 LICENCES TO FISH FOR HERRING WERE ISSUED TO DE BOER ON THE BASIS OF THE ORDER . HOWEVER , THE LICENCES WERE WITHDRAWN BY THE DECISION CHALLENGED IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE DE BOER ' S VESSELS HAD LANDED STRONGLY SALTED , UNGUTTED HERRING .
THE QUESTION SUBMITTED TO THE COURT
12 ACCORDING TO ITS JUDGMENT REFERRING THE CASE TO THE COURT , THE COLLEGE VAN BEROEP IS INCLINED TO TAKE THE VIEW THAT RULES WHICH RESTRICT ACCESS TO THE QUOTA TO FISHERMEN ABLE TO BRING BACK MAATJESHARING FROM THE FISHING AREA IN QUESTION CANNOT FOR THAT REASON BE REGARDED AS UNLAWFUL . HOWEVER , IF THE RULES HAVE THE EFFECT THAT HERRING OF GOOD QUALITY CAUGHT AS PART OF THE QUOTA IS BARRED FROM THE MARKET BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN PROCESSED INTO A PRODUCT OTHER THAN MAATJESHARING , THE QUESTION ARISES WHETHER THIS CONSTITUTES A BREACH OF THE FREEDOMS PROTECTED BY THE EEC TREATY . THE NATIONAL COURT HAS THEREFORE REFERRED THE FOLLOWING QUESTION TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING :
' ARE NATIONAL RULES SUCH AS ARE LAID DOWN IN THE 1983 ORDER ADMINISTERING A LIMITED QUOTA OF THE KIND INVOLVED IN THIS CASE PROHIBITED UNDER COMMUNITY LAW , AS IT STANDS AT PRESENT , BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE EFFECT OF PREVENTING HERRING CAUGHT IN THE SECTORS OF THE NORTH SEA COVERED BY THE QUOTA FROM BEING MARKETED IN A CERTAIN PROCESSED FORM , NAMELY UNGUTTED AND STRONGLY SALTED , EVEN IF HERRING TREATED IN THAT WAY IN ITSELF SATISFIES THE NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY PROVISIONS IN FORCE?
'
13 THAT QUESTION