THEM .
17 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, AN ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION ON THE IMPORTATION OF MILK SUBSTITUTES CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED ON GROUNDS OF THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH .
COMPATIBILITY OF THE MEASURE AT ISSUE WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE RELEVANT COMMUNITY POLICY
18 AS FOR THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT' S ARGUMENT THAT THE PROHIBITION ON THE MARKETING OF MILK SUBSTITUTES IN FRANCE IS CONSONANT WITH THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY, IT MUST FIRST BE OBSERVED THAT MILK PRODUCTS ARE SUBJECT TO A COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET, WHICH IS DESIGNED TO STABILIZE THE MILK MARKET, INTER ALIA BY MEANS OF INTERVENTION MEASURES . IT APPEARS FROM THE ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW OF THE COURT THAT ONCE THE COMMUNITY HAS ESTABLISHED A COMMON MARKET ORGANIZATION IN A PARTICULAR SECTOR, THE MEMBER STATES MUST REFRAIN FROM TAKING ANY UNILATERAL MEASURE WHICH CONSEQUENTLY FALLS WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF THE COMMUNITY .
IT IS THEREFORE FOR THE COMMUNITY AND NOT FOR A MEMBER STATE TO SEEK A SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM IN THE CONTEXT OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY .
19 IN THIS CONNECTION, IT MUST BE ADDED THAT, EVEN IF THEY SUPPORT A COMMON POLICY OF THE COMMUNITY, NATIONAL MEASURES MAY NOT CONFLICT WITH ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE COMMUNITY - IN THIS CASE THAT OF THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS - UNLESS THEY ARE JUSTIFIED BY REASONS RECOGNIZED BY COMMUNITY LAW .
20 IT APPEARS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT THE MEASURE AT ISSUE FALLS WITHIN THE PROHIBITION SET OUT IN ARTICLE 30 OF THE EEC TREATY AND IS NOT JUSTIFIED EITHER BY ANY MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OR ON ONE OF THE GROUNDS LISTED IN ARTICLE 36 OF THE TREATY .
JUSTIFICATION OF THE PROVISION IN QUESTION BY ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION NO 1898/87
21 IN ADDITION, THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT INTERPRETS ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION NO 1898/87, WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE MEMBER STATES MAY, FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD "AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY, MAINTAIN THEIR NATIONAL REGULATIONS WHICH RESTRICT THE MANUFACTURE AND MARKETING IN THEIR TERRITORY OF PRODUCTS NOT FULFILLING THE CONDITIONS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 2 OF THIS REGULATION", AS MEANING THAT THE FRENCH LEGISLATION IN QUESTION MAY IN ANY EVENT CONTINUE TO APPLY .
22 THAT ARGUMENT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED . WITHOUT ITS EVEN BEING NECESSARY TO RULE ON WHETHER ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION NO 1898/87 IS RETROACTIVE, IT IS SUFFICIENT TO OBSERVE THAT THAT ARTICLE PROVIDES THAT NATIONAL REGULATIONS MAY BE MAINTAINED ONLY ON CONDITION THAT THE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE EEC TREATY ARE COMPLIED WITH . HOWEVER, AS THE COURT HAS HELD ABOVE, THE PROVISION AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS CONTRARY TO ARTICLE 30 OF THE EEC TREATY AND THEREFORE DOES NOT SATISFY THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION NO 1898/87 .
23 IT APPEARS FROM ALL THE FOREGOING THAT IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THERE HAS BEEN A FAILURE TO FULFIL OBLIGATIONS . IT MUST THEREFORE BE HELD THAT, BY PROHIBITING THE IMPORTATION OF SUBSTITUTES FOR MILK POWDER AND CONCENTRATED MILK UNDER ANY NAME