QUESTION ).
19CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF ARTICLE 12 OF REGULATION NO 14/64 AND ARTICLE 20 OF REGULATION NO 805/68 , THOSE QUESTIONS ARE INTENDED TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE STATED ARTICLES OF DIRECTIVE NO 72/462 CONSTITUTE EXCEPTIONS OR DEROGATIONS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SAID ARTICLES 12 ( 2 ) AND 20 ( 2 ) FROM THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF THE PROHIBITION ON THE LEVYING OF CHARGES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT WHICH IS LAID DOWN IN THOSE PROVISIONS , AND , IF SO , WHETHER THOSE REGULATIONS COULD VALIDLY PROVIDE FOR A POWER TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION TO OR TO DEROGATE FROM THAT PROHIBITION .
20IT IS NECESSARY TO EXAMINE FIRST WHETHER THE COUNCIL AND , WHERE APPROPRIATE , THE COMMISSION MAY , IN THE REGULATIONS WHICH THEY ADOPT , PROVIDE FOR EXCEPTIONS OR DEROGATIONS OF THAT NATURE .
21WHERE THE ELIMINATION OF CHARGES HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO CUSTOMS DUTIES IS APPLIED TO TRADE WITH THIRD COUNTRIES , ITS OBJECTIVES AND LEGAL BASIS ARE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE WHICH UNDERLIE AND JUSTIFY THE PROHIBITION OF SUCH CHARGES IN INTRA-COMMUNITY TRADE .
22IN SO FAR AS INTRA-COMMUNITY TRADE IS CONCERNED , THE PROHIBITION IS LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 9 OF THE TREATY ITSELF , AND IS UNCONDITIONAL AND ABSOLUTE BECAUSE IT IS DESIGNED TO ESTABLISH FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY .
23ON THE OTHER HAND , IN SO FAR AS TRADE WITH THIRD COUNTRIES IS CONCERNED , THE QUESTION WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY TO ABOLISH , MAINTAIN , AMEND OR INTRODUCE CHARGES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT MUST BE RELATED BOTH TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY AND TO THE REQUIREMENTS , CONSEQUENT UPON THE INTRODUCTION OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF , OF HARMONIZATION OF CONDITIONS OF IMPORTATION FROM THIRD COUNTRIES .
24IN VIEW OF THESE DIFFERENCES , IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO APPLY TO TRADE WITH THIRD COUNTRIES THE PRINCIPLES STATED BY THE COURT IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 25 JANUARY 1977 ( CASE 46/76 BAUHUIS ( 1977 ) ECR 5 ) ACCORDING TO WHICH THE DESCRIPTION OF CHARGES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT , WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLES 9 , 12 AND 13 OF THE TREATY , DOES NOT APPLY TO HEALTH INSPECTION CHARGES LEVIED IN ORDER TO COVER THE COST OF UNIFORM INSPECTIONS , IMPOSED BY A COMMUNITY REGULATION OR DIRECTIVE , IN THE EXPORTING MEMBER STATE , WHICH CONSTITUTE STEPS TO ABOLISH OBSTACLES TO TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES IN THAT THEY ARE INTENDED TO MAKE INSPECTIONS AT FRONTIERS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY UNNECESSARY .
25IN FACT , THESE CONSIDERATIONS DO NOT APPLY AS REGARDS PECUNIARY CHARGES RELATING TO INSPECTIONS OF PRODUCTS FROM THIRD COUNTRIES , WHERE IT IS A QUESTION NOT OF ABOLISHING THE CHARGES BUT RATHER OF MAKING THEM UNIFORM AND WHERE THE PROHIBITION , MAINTENANCE , AMENDMENT OR INTRODUCTION OF CHARGES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT ARE BASED BOTH ON A CONCERN TO HARMONIZE CHARGES AT THE EXTERNAL FRONTIERS OF THE COMMUNITY AND ON CONSIDERATIONS OF COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY .
26IT FOLLOWS FROM THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE PROHIBITIONS