RATHER THAN BY IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF A LIMITED NUMBER OF PRODUCTS , WHICH IS THE METHOD ON WHICH THE NATIONAL LEGISLATION IN QUESTION IS BASED .
16 ACCORDINGLY , IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS , THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION MUST BE THAT REGULATION NO 804/68 IS TO BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT , IN THE ABSENCE OF COMMUNITY RULES , A MEMBER STATE MAY UNILATERALLY ADOPT , WITH THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING SALES OF CHEESE AND CHEESE PRODUCTS , RULES CONCERNING THE QUALITY OF CHEESES PRODUCED WITHIN ITS TERRITORY INCLUDING A BAN ON THE PRODUCTION OF CHEESES OTHER THAN THOSE EXHAUSTIVELY LISTED .
SECOND QUESTION RELATING TO ARTICLES 30 AND 34 OF THE EEC TREATY
( A ) MEASURES DESIGNED TO IMPROVE QUALITY
17 THE SECOND QUESTION SEEKS IN SUBSTANCE TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER ARTICLES 30 AND 34 OF THE EEC TREATY ARE TO BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT A MEMBER STATE MAY UNILATERALLY ADOPT , WITH THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING SALES OF CHEESE AND CHEESE PRODUCTS , RULES INTENDED TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF DOMESTIC PRODUCTION TOGETHER WITH RULES ON THE COMPULSORY USE OF STAMPS , MARKS OR INSPECTION DOCUMENTS .
18 THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE MAIN ACTION AND THE COMMISSION CONTENDED THAT A NATIONAL MEASURE DESIGNED TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF DOMESTIC PRODUCTION AND THEREBY INCREASE THE SALE OF SUCH PRODUCTS WAS CAPABLE OF PLACING IMPORTS AT A DISADVANTAGE AND THEREFORE CONSTITUTED A MEASURE HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO A QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTION ON IMPORTS .
19 IT MUST BE REMEMBERED IN THAT RESPECT THAT IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 24 NOVEMBER 1982 IN CASE 249/81 COMMISSION V IRELAND ( 1982 ) ECR 4005 , THE COURT HELD THAT A PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN TO PROMOTE THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF DOMESTIC PRODUCTS MAY , IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES , FALL WITHIN THE PROHIBITION CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 30 OF THE TREATY , IF IT IS SUPPORTED BY THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES . THE COURT HAS ALSO RULED THAT A BODY WHICH IS SET UP BY THE GOVERNMENT OF A MEMBER STATE AND IS FINANCED BY A CHARGE IMPOSED ON PRODUCERS IS UNDER A DUTY NOT TO ENGAGE IN ANY ADVERTISING INTENDED TO DISCOURAGE THE PURCHASE OF PRODUCTS OF OTHER MEMBER STATES OR TO DISPARAGE THOSE PRODUCTS IN THE EYES OF CONSUMERS . NOR MUST SUCH A BODY ADVISE CONSUMERS TO PURCHASE DOMESTIC PRODUCTS SOLELY BY REASON OF THEIR NATIONAL ORIGIN ( JUDGMENT OF 13 DECEMBER 1983 IN CASE 222/82 APPLE AND PEAR DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL ( 1983 ) ECR 4083 ).
20 ON THE OTHER HAND , ARTICLE 30 DOES NOT PREVENT THE ADOPTION OF NATIONAL RULES WHICH , WHILST LEAVING IMPORTED PRODUCTS UNAFFECTED , HAVE AS THEIR PURPOSE TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF DOMESTIC PRODUCTION SO AS TO MAKE IT MORE ATTRACTIVE TO CONSUMERS . A MEASURE OF THAT KIND COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF SOUND AND FAIR COMPETITION LAID DOWN BY THE TREATY .
21 THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE MAIN ACTION AND THE COMMISSION ALSO CONSIDER THAT CERTAIN