TYPE AT ISSUE IS PROPORTIONATE TO THE COSTS OF A COMPULSORY PUBLIC HEALTH INSPECTION CARRIED OUT ON ENTRY OF THE GOODS . THE ACTIVITY OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE STATE INTENDED TO MAINTAIN A PUBLIC HEALTH INSPECTION SYSTEM IMPOSED IN THE GENERAL INTEREST CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A SERVICE RENDERED TO THE IMPORTER SUCH AS TO JUSTIFY THE IMPOSITION OF A PECUNIARY CHARGE . IF , ACCORDINGLY , PUBLIC HEALTH INSPECTIONS ARE STILL JUSTIFIED AT THE END OF THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD , THE COSTS WHICH THEY OCCASION MUST BY MET BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC WHICH , AS A WHOLE , BENEFITS FROM THE FREE MOVEMENT OF COMMUNITY GOODS .
11 THE FACT THAT THE DOMESTIC PRODUCTION IS , THROUGH OTHER CHARGES , SUBJECTED TO A SIMILAR BURDEN MATTERS LITTLE UNLESS THOSE CHARGES AND THE DUTY IN QUESTION ARE APPLIED ACCORDING TO THE SAME CRITERIA AND AT THE SAME STAGE OF PRODUCTION , THUS MAKING IT POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO BE REGARDED AS FALLING WITHIN A GENERAL SYSTEM OF INTERNAL TAXATION APPLYING SYSTEMATICALLY AND IN THE SAME WAY TO DOMESTIC AND IMPORTED PRODUCTS .
12 THE SECOND QUESTION IS WHETHER ARTICLE 13 ( 2 ) BEGAN TO HAVE DIRECT EFFECT ON 31 DECEMBER 1969 , THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD ENDED , OR ON 1 JULY 1968 , THE DATE ON WHICH CUSTOMS DUTIES WERE ABOLISHED WITHIN THE COMMUNITY .
13 SUBJECT TO ANY SPECIFIC PROVISIONS , SUCH EFFECT OCCURRED AS FROM THE END OF THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD , NAMELY 1 JANUARY 1970 . IN FACT , THE COUNCIL ' S DECISION OF 26 JULY 1966 ON THE ABOLITION OF CUSTOMS DUTIES IN LINE WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF ON 1 JULY 1968 ( JO P . 2971 ) IS BASED ON THE CONCEPT OF A SELECTIVE ACCELERATION OF ACTIONS WHICH , AS A WHOLE , WERE TO BE COMPLETED BY THE END OF THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD AT THE LATEST . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT DECISION ONLY APPLIES TO MEASURES TO WHICH IT SPECIFICALLY REFERS , THAT IS TO SAY , TO CUSTOMS DUTIES AS SUCH AND TO QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS .
14 THE REPLY MUST THEREFORE BE THAT THE DIRECT EFFECT OF ARTICLE 13 ( 2 ) CAN ONLY BE INVOKED AS FROM 1 JANUARY 1970 .
15 THE THIRD QUESTION IS WHETHER THE CONCEPT OF A CHARGE HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT HAS THE SAME MEANING IN ARTICLE 2 ( 1 ) OF THE YAOUNDE CONVENTION OF 1963 AND OF THE YAOUNDE CONVENTION OF 1969 AS IN ARTICLE 13 ( 2 ) OF THE TREATY .
THE FOURTH QUESTION IS WHETHER ARTICLE 2 ( 1 ) OF THE YAOUNDE CONVENTION OF 1963 HAS IMMEDIATE EFFECT SO AS TO CONFER ON COMMUNITY ' CITIZENS ' AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT , WHICH THE NATIONAL COURTS MUST PROTECT , NOT TO PAY TO A MEMBER STATE A CHARGE HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO CUSTOMS DUTIES . AS THESE QUESTIONS ARE RELATED , THEY MUST BE JOINED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE