SECURITY, THE PENALTY CONSTITUTES THE COROLLARY OF THE SYSTEM OF SECURITY AND IS INTENDED TO ACHIEVE THE SAME OBJECTIVES AS THE SECURITY ITSELF . THAT SANCTION ISIMPOSED AT A FLAT RATE AND IS INDEPENDENT OF ANY CULPABILITY ON THE PART OF THE TRADER . IT IS THEREFORE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE SYSTEM OF SECURITY AT ISSUE AND IS NOT CRIMINAL IN NATURE .
14 CONSEQUENTLY, IN A SYSTEM OF SECURITY SUCH AS THAT DESCRIBED ABOVE THE TWO PRINCIPLES TYPICAL OF CRIMINAL LAW REFERRED TO BY THE NATIONAL COURT, NAMELY THE PRINCIPLES NULLA POENA SINE CULPA AND IN DUBIO PRO REO, ARE NOT APPLICABLE .
15 HOWEVER, THE PARTIES ARE NOT FOR THAT REASON DEPRIVED OF LEGAL PROTECTION . AS THE COURT HAS HELD IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 25 SEPTEMBER 1984 IN CASE 117/83 KONECKE V BALM (( 1984 )) ECR 3291, A PENALTY, EVEN OF A NON-CRIMINAL NATURE, CANNOT BE IMPOSED UNLESS IT RESTS ON A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS LEGAL BASIS . MOREOVER, THE COURT HAS ALWAYS EMPHASIZED THAT FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY LAW WHICH IT IS CALLED UPON TO ENFORCE . FINALLY, IT IS SETTLED LAW ( SEE MOST RECENTLY THE JUDGMENT OF 18 MARCH 1987 IN CASE 56/86 SOCIETE POUR L' EXPORTATION DES SUCRES V OBEA (( 1987 )) ECR ...) THAT THE PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW MUST COMPLY WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY, THAT IS TO SAY, THE MEANS WHICH THEY EMPLOY MUST BE APPROPRIATE TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVE PURSUED AND MUST NOT GO BEYOND WHAT IS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE IT .
16 IN THIS CASE, THE DOUBTS EXPRESSED BY THE NATIONAL COURT CONCERNING THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE LEGISLATION IN QUESTION WITH SUPERIOR RULES OF COMMUNITY LAW MUST THEREFORE BE UNDERSTOOD AS
QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF THAT LEGISLATION IN THE LIGHT OF THEIR LEGAL BASIS AND OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY .
LEGAL BASIS
17 THE DEFENDANTS CLAIM IN THEIR WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT THAT THERE IS NO CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS LEGAL BASIS FOR A PENALTY IN THIS CASE . ARTICLE 42*(3 ) OF REGULATION NO 3183/80 PROVIDES THAT ARTICLE 38 OF THE REGULATION IS TO BE APPLIED MUTATIS MUTANDIS, BUT THE MEANING OF THAT EXPRESSION IS UNCLEAR . FURTHERMORE, ARTICLE 42*(3 ) OF THE REGULATION DOES NOT PROVIDE A SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR LEGAL BASIS INASMUCH AS IT IS NOT FORMULATED IN A MANNER APPROPRIATE TO A PROVISION IMPOSING A PENALTY . IT IS IN FACT ADDRESSED ONLY TO THE AUTHORITY WHICH ISSUED THE CERTIFICATE .
18 ARTICLE 42 OF REGULATION 3183/80 REQUIRES THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO APPLY THE PROVISIONS LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 38*(1)*(C ) WHERE PRODUCTS HAVE BEEN PLACED UNDER CUSTOMS CONTROL AND THE TIME-LIMIT LAID DOWN FOR EXPORTATION HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH . DEMANDS FOR THE PROVISION OF FRESH SECURITY SUCH AS THOSE AT ISSUE IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS ARE THUS BASED ON A REFERENCE WHICH IS CLEAR AND ENTIRELY UNAMBIGUOUS .
THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY
19 THE NATIONAL COURT CONSIDERS THAT THIS