Apple and Pear Development Council v K.J. Lewis Ltd and others.
Date: 1983-12-13
17 AS THE COURT HELD IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 24 NOVEMBER 1982 IN CASE 249/81 ( COMMISSION V IRELAND ( 1982 ) ECR 4005 ), A PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN TO PROMOTE THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF DOMESTIC PRODUCTS MAY , IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES , FALL WITHIN THE PROHIBITION CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 30 OF THE TREATY , IF THE CAMPAIGN IS SUPPORTED BY THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES . IN FACT , A BODY SUCH AS THE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL , WHICH IS SET UP BY THE GOVERNMENT OF A MEMBER STATE AND IS FINANCED BY A CHARGE IMPOSED ON GROWERS , CANNOT UNDER COMMUNITY LAW ENJOY THE SAME FREEDOM AS REGARDS THE METHODS OF ADVERTISING USED AS THAT ENJOYED BY PRODUCERS THEMSELVES OR PRODUCERS '  ASSOCIATIONS OF A VOLUNTARY CHARACTER .
18 IN PARTICULAR , SUCH A BODY IS UNDER A DUTY NOT TO ENGAGE IN ANY ADVERTISING INTENDED TO DISCOURAGE THE PURCHASE OF PRODUCTS OF OTHER MEMBER STATES OR TO DISPARAGE THOSE PRODUCTS IN THE EYES OF CONSUMERS . NOR MUST IT ADVISE CONSUMERS TO PURCHASE DOMESTIC PRODUCTS SOLELY BY REASON OF THEIR NATIONAL ORIGIN .
23 IN THAT REGARD , IT SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED THAT THE RULES ON THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN FRUIT AND VEGETABLES PROVIDE FOR AN EXHAUSTIVE SYSTEM OF QUALITY STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION . UNLESS THOSE RULES PROVIDE OTHERWISE , MEMBER STATES AND , A FORTIORI , BODIES SUCH AS THE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL ARE THEREFORE PREVENTED FROM IMPOSING UNILATERAL PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE QUALITY OF THE FRUIT MARKETED BY GROWERS .
31 AS THE COURT HAS HELD PREVIOUSLY , IN PARTICULAR IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 26 OCTOBER 1983 IN CASE 297/82 ( DE SAMVIRKENDE DANSKE LANDBOFORENINGER ( 1983 ) ECR 3299 ), A CHARGE IMPOSED ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE COMMUNITY PROVISIONS RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL POLICY , IN SO FAR AS IT HAS THE EFFECT , AS A RESULT OF ITS INFLUENCE ON PRICE FORMATION OR THROUGH THE CHANGE IN THE STRUCTURE OF AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS WHICH MAY RESULT THEREFROM , OF IMPEDING FUNCTIONING OF THE MACHINERY PROVIDED FOR UNDER THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKETS . ALTHOUGH IT IS FOR THE NATIONAL COURT TO CONSIDER WHETHER , AND IF SO , TO WHAT EXTENT , THE CHARGE WHICH IT IS CALLED UPON TO CONSIDER HAS ACTUALLY PRODUCED SUCH EFFECTS , IT SHOULD NEVERTHELESS BE NOTED     THAT AS A GENERAL RULE A CHARGE OF WHICH THE PROCEEDS ARE ESSENTIALLY USED FOR PUBLICITY MEASURES WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE TO BE FINANCED BY THE PRODUCERS THEMSELVES CANNOT HAVE SUCH EFFECTS .
32 HOWEVER , IT SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED THAT THE LEVYING OF A CHARGE SUCH AS THE ONE IN QUESTION WOULD BE CONTRARY TO COMMUNITY LAW TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT SERVED TO FINANCE ACTIVITIES WHICH WERE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE PROVISIONS REFERRED TO IN THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING .
33 THE FIRST QUESTION MUST THEREFORE BE ANSWERED AS FOLLOWS :
( A ) THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY RELATING TO THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS AND TO AGRICULTURE AND THE RULES ON THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN FRUIT AND VEGETABLES DO NOT PREVENT A MEMBER STATE FROM ADOPTING OR MAINTAINING MEASURES
( I ) ESTABLISHING A DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL FOR FRUIT PRODUCTION , COMPOSED OF MEMBERS APPOINTED BY THE MINISTER RESPONSIBLE , IN PARTICULAR FROM AMONG THE GROWERS INVOLVED , AND
( II)REQUIRING ONLY FRUIT GROWERS WITH A PLANTATION WHICH EXCEEDS A SPECIFIED SIZE TO REGISTER WITH THE SAID COUNCIL , TO FURNISH RETURNS AND INFORMATION ON THEIR ACTIVITIES IN THE INDUSTRY AND TO FINANCE THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER EXPENSES OF THE COUNCIL BY THE PAYMENT OF AN ANNUAL CHARGE ,
IN SO FAR AS THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COUNCIL CONSIST IN COMPILING STATISTICS , PROMOTING OR UNDERTAKING RESEARCH , MAKING THE RESULTS THUS OBTAINED AVAILABLE TO GROWERS AND GIVING GROWERS TECHNICAL ADVICE ABOUT FRUIT-GROWING .

( B)THE SAID PROVISIONS DO NOT PREVENT SUCH A BODY FROM DRAWING ATTENTION , IN ITS PUBLICITY , TO THE SPECIFIC QUALITIES OF FRUIT PRODUCED WITHIN THE MEMBER STATE IN QUESTION OR FROM ORGANIZING CAMPAIGNS TO PROMOTE THE SALE OF CERTAIN VARIETIES , MENTIONING THEIR PARTICULAR PROPERTIES , EVEN IF THOSE VARIETIES ARE TYPICAL OF NATIONAL PRODUCTION ; ON THE OTHER HAND , IT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO ARTICLE 30 OF THE TREATY FOR SUCH A BODY TO ENGAGE     IN PUBLICITY INTENDED TO DISCOURAGE THE PURCHASE OF PRODUCTS FROM OTHER MEMBER STATES OR TO DISPARAGE THOSE PRODUCTS IN THE EYES OF CONSUMERS , OR TO ADVISE CONSUMERS TO PURCHASE DOMESTIC PRODUCTS SOLELY BY REASON OF THEIR NATIONAL ORIGIN .

( C)THE SAID PROVISIONS DO NOT PREVENT SUCH A BODY FROM ADDRESSING TO GROWERS , WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF ITS GENERAL ADVISORY ROLE , RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING THE QUALITY AND PRESENTATION OF THE FRUIT MARKETED ; ON THE OTHER HAND , IN VIEW OF THE EXHAUSTIVE NATURE OF THE SYSTEM OF COMMON QUALITY STANDARDS IT WOULD BE UNLAWFUL FOR SUCH A BODY TO ATTEMPT TO IMPOSE COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS DIFFERENT FROM THOSE COMMON STANDARDS , BY APPLYING ANY SORT OF SANCTIONS OR BY USING THE AUTHORITY VESTED IN IT BY ITS CONSTITUTION TO BRING PRESSURE TO BEAR ON GROWERS OR TRADERS .

( D)THE SAID PROVISIONS RENDER UNLAWFUL THE REQUIREMENT FOR GROWERS TO BECOME MEMBERS OF SUCH A BODY OR TO FINANCE ITS ACTIVITIES BY THE PAYMENT OF A CHARGE , IF AND IN SO FAR AS THOSE ACTIVITIES ARE CONTRARY TO THE SAID PROVISIONS .

THE SECOND QUESTION