TO BE AUTOMATIC .
10 HOWEVER , THESE COMMENTS IN NO WAY ANSWER THE QUESTION OF THE OBJECTIVE SCOPE OF THE MEASURE ADOPTED BY THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES .
11 THERE IS NOTHING IN THE NOTICE TO EXPORTERS AND THE BULLETINS TO INDICATE THAT EXPORTS TO MEMBER STATES WERE TO BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY FROM EXPORTS TO THIRD COUNTRIES .
12 AS REGARDS THE LATTER , THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CONTEST THAT THE MEASURE AT ISSUE HAD THE OBJECT AND EFFECT OF RESTRAINING EXPORTS .
13 ON THE CONTRARY , THE TITLE OF THE MEASURE AT ISSUE : ' NOTICE TO EXPORTERS TO ALL COUNTRIES OF CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF POTATOES ' COULD NOT ENABLE THOSE CONCERNED TO CONCLUDE THAT ONLY EXPORTS TO THIRD COUNTRIES WOULD BE AFFECTED .
14 AS THE COURT STATED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 15 DECEMBER 1971 , IN JOINED CASES 51 TO 54/71 ( INTERNATIONAL FRUIT COMPANY NV AND OTHERS V PRODUKTSCHAP VOOR GROENTEN EN FRUIT ( 1971 ) ECR 1107 ), APART FROM THE EXCEPTIONS FOR WHICH PROVISION IS MADE BY COMMUNITY LAW ITSELF ARTICLES 30 AND 34 PRECLUDE THE APPLICATION TO INTRA-COMMUNITY TRADE OF A NATIONAL PROVISION WHICH REQUIRES , EVEN PURELY AS A FORMALITY , IMPORT OR EXPORT LICENCES OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR PROCEDURE .
15 ACCORDINGLY , EVEN IF IN CONNEXION WITH INTRA-COMMUNITY TRADE THE FORMA GRANTED ITS ENDORSEMENT WITHOUT DELAY AND FOR ALL QUANTITIES REQUESTED , AND EVEN IF THE OBJECT OF THE MEASURE WAS MERELY TO ASCERTAIN THE INTENTIONS OF EXPORTERS , IT MUST BE HELD TO BE A MEASURE HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO A QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTION ON EXPORTS .
16 INDEED THE IMPOSITION OF ANY SPECIAL EXPORT FORMALITY CONSTITUTES AN OBSTACLE TO TRADE BY THE DELAY WHICH IT INVOLVES AND THE DISSUASIVE EFFECT THAT IT HAS UPON EXPORTERS .
17 IN THE ALTERNATIVE , THE FRENCH REPUBLIC CLAIMS THAT , IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY APPROPRIATE COMMUNITY MEASURES AND IN RESPECT OF AN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT WHICH IS NOT YET COVERED BY A COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET , THE MEMBER STATES MAY ADOPT MEASURES IN DEROGATION FROM THE COMMON RULES , THAT IS TO SAY , THE RULES ON THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 39 ET SEQ . OF THE TREATY , PROVIDED THAT SUCH DEROGATIVE MEASURES ARE OF A CONJUNCTURAL NATURE , ARE PROPORTIONAL TO THE LEGITIMATE OBJECTIVE PURSUED AND ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE COURTS .
18 THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT STATES THAT ALTHOUGH ARTICLE 34 PROHIBITS ALL MEASURES HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS ON EXPORTS THE MEASURE WHICH IT HAS ADOPTED SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED SOLELY IN THE LIGHT OF ARTICLE 34 .
19 SINCE POTATOES ARE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS , AS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLES 38 TO 46 OF THE TREATY , IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE MEASURE AT ISSUE IS JUSTIFIED PURSUANT TO THE EXCEPTIONS WHICH MAY BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF THOSE ARTICLES TO THE RULES CONCERNING THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS .
20 ARTICLE 38 ( 1