Regina on the application of S.P. Anastasiou (Pissouri) Ltd and Others v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Date: 2003-09-30
45. Directive 77/93 is thus designed, in particular, to ensure a high level of phytosanitary protection against the bringing into the Community of harmful organisms in produce imported from non-member countries.  The common system of protection established in this regard by Directive 77/93 is based essentially on a system of checks which are carried out by experts lawfully empowered for that purpose by the government of the exporting country and guaranteed by the issue of the appropriate phytosanitary certificate.  Checks carried out by importing Member States at the border have significant limitations and, in any event, cannot take the place of phytosanitary certification (see Case C-432/92  Anastasiou and Others , paragraphs 61 and 62, and Case C-219/98  Anastasiou and Others , paragraph 22).
47. Since that procedural requirement is fundamental in nature, the Member States may accept phytosanitary certificates issued by a non-member country which is not the products ' country of origin under certain conditions only (Case C-219/98  Anastasiou and Others , paragraphs 36 and 37).  Those conditions, compliance with which can be checked by the importing Member State by reference to the shipping documents, have the effect of restricting the possibilities for issue of phytosanitary certificates by non-member countries other than the country of origin, and ensure cooperation between the exporting State and the importing Member State (Case C-219/98  Anastasiou and Others , paragraph 37).
54. On the other hand, the provision of Article 9(1) of Directive 77/93 stating that the official phytosanitary certificate required must be issued in the country of origin   " save ... to the extent that the special requirements laid down in Annex IV, Part A, can be fulfilled also at places other than that of origin"  constitutes an exception to the rule requiring the certificate to be issued in the country of origin.  It must therefore be interpreted restrictively.
63. First, such an analysis of item 16.1, interpreting it as requiring merely a subsequent check that the packaging bears an appropriate origin mark, is contrary to the purpose of that item, which requires actual performance of that marking requirement.  Second, the inspector responsible for issuing the phytosanitary certificate in that other country is not in the same situation as his counterpart in the country of origin for the purpose of detecting any falsification of the origin mark designed to derive improper advantage from a satisfactory phytosanitary finding as to the country of origin, inasmuch as he will be able to act on the basis only of invoices or transport or dispatch documents.  Finally, the cooperation which the competent authorities of the importing Member State build up with those of a non-member country other than the country from which the imported plants originate cannot establish itself under conditions as satisfactory as in the case of direct cooperation with the competent authorities of the country of origin.  Effective cooperation with the latter authorities is especially important, particularly in the case of contamination (see, to this effect, Case C-432/92  Anastasiou and Others , paragraph 63).