Jongeneel Kaas BV and others v State of the Netherlands and Stichting Centraal Orgaan Zuivelcontrole.
Date: 1984-02-07
12 THAT ARGUMENT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED . IT IS CLEAR FROM THE CONSISTENT CASE-LAW OF THE COURT THAT , ONCE THE COMMUNITY HAS ADOPTED , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 40 OF     THE TREATY , REGULATIONS ESTABLISHING A COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN A GIVEN SECTOR , MEMBER STATES ARE UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO REFRAIN FROM TAKING ANY MEASURES WHICH MIGHT UNDERMINE OR CREATE EXCEPTIONS TO IT ( JUDGMENT OF 22 JUNE 1979 IN CASE 177/78 PIGS AND BACON COMMISSION V MCCARREN ( 1979 ) ECR 2161 ).
13 HOWEVER , THE FACT THAT THE LEGISLATION IN QUESTION MAKES NO MENTION OF THE DESIGNATION AND QUALITY OF CHEESE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS CONSCIOUSLY AND OF NECESSITY DECIDED TO IMPOSE ON THE MEMBER STATES IN THAT SECTOR AN OBLIGATION TO ADHERE TO A SYSTEM OF ABSOLUTE FREEDOM OF PRODUCTION . IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY RULE OF COMMUNITY LAW ON THE QUALITY OF CHEESE PRODUCTS THE COURT CONSIDERS THAT THE MEMBER STATES RETAIN THE POWER TO APPLY RULES OF THAT KIND TO CHEESE PRODUCERS ESTABLISHED WITHIN THEIR TERRITORY . THAT POWER EXTENDS NOT ONLY TO RULES CONSIDERED NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE CONSUMER OR PUBLIC HEALTH BUT ALSO TO RULES WHICH A MEMBER STATE MAY WISH TO ENACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING THE QUALITY OF DOMESTIC PRODUCTION . SUCH RULES CANNOT HOWEVER DISCRIMINATE AGAINST IMPORTED PRODUCTS OR HINDER THE IMPORTATION OF PRODUCTS FROM OTHER MEMBER STATES . FINALLY , IT MUST BE POINTED OUT THAT NATIONAL RULES ON QUALITY MAKE IT POSSIBLE , PENDING THE ADOPTION OF COMMUNITY RULES , TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 39 OF THE EEC TREATY AND BY THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET AND TO GIVE SPECIFIC FORM TO THE MEASURES ALREADY ADOPTED BY THE COMMUNITY .
14 IT IS ALSO NECESSARY TO REJECT THE COMMISSION ' S ARGUMENT THAT THE EFFECT OF THE PROHIBITION OF THE PRODUCTION OF CHEESES OTHER THAN THOSE EXHAUSTIVELY LISTED BY THE NATIONAL LEGISLATION IN QUESTION WOULD BE TO EXCLUDE THE POSSIBILITIES OF INTERVENTION PROVIDED FOR BY THE RELEVANT COMMUNITY RULES AND THUS TO PREVENT THAT LEGISLATION FROM FUNCTIONING PROPERLY . THE AIM OF THE INTERVENTION MACHINERY IS TO RESTORE THE BALANCE BETWEEN SUPPLY AND DEMAND AND NATIONAL LEGISLATION WHICH HAS AS ITS LONG-TERM PURPOSE TO INCREASE DEMAND BY MAKING DOMESTIC CHEESE PRODUCTION MORE ATTRACTIVE TO THE CONSUMER PURSUES IN PRINCIPLE THE SAME OBJECTIVE . IN VIEW OF THE VERY LIMITED SCOPE OF THE COMMUNITY MARKET-SUPPORT MEASURES IN THE CHEESE SECTOR , IT IS NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH THOSE MEASURES TO ADOPT NATIONAL MEASURES CONCERNING QUALITY WHICH PROHIBIT THE PRODUCTION OF CHEESES OF A TYPE OR QUALITY OTHER THAN THOSE PROVIDED FOR BY THE NATIONAL LEGISLATION .
20 ON THE OTHER HAND , ARTICLE 30 DOES NOT PREVENT THE ADOPTION OF NATIONAL RULES WHICH , WHILST LEAVING IMPORTED PRODUCTS UNAFFECTED , HAVE AS THEIR PURPOSE TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF DOMESTIC PRODUCTION SO AS TO MAKE IT MORE ATTRACTIVE TO CONSUMERS . A MEASURE OF THAT KIND COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF SOUND AND FAIR COMPETITION LAID DOWN BY THE TREATY .
22 WITH REGARD TO THAT ARGUMENT , THE COURT MUST STATE THAT IT HAS REPEATEDLY HELD ( IN PARTICULAR IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 1 APRIL 1982 IN JOINED CASES 141 TO 143/81 HOLDIJK ( 1982 ) ECR 1299 ) THAT ARTICLE 34 OF THE TREATY CONCERNS NATIONAL MEASURES WHICH HAVE AS THEIR SPECIFIC OBJECT OR EFFECT THE RESTRICTION OF PATTERNS OF EXPORTS AND THEREBY THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT BETWEEN THE DOMESTIC TRADE OF A MEMBER STATE AND ITS EXPORT TRADE , IN SUCH A WAY AS TO PROVIDE A SPECIAL ADVANTAGE FOR NATIONAL PRODUCTION OR FOR THE DOMESTIC MARKET OF THE STATE IN QUESTION . THAT IS NOT THE CASE , HOWEVER , WHERE CERTAIN PROVISIONS LAY DOWN MINIMUM STANDARDS OF     QUALITY FOR CHEESE PRODUCTION , WITHOUT MAKING ANY DISTINCTION AS TO WHETHER THE CHEESE IS INTENDED FOR THE DOMESTIC MARKET OR FOR EXPORT .