W. J. G. Bauhuis v The Netherlands State.
Date: 1977-01-25
11 THE POSITION WOULD BE DIFFERENT ONLY IF THE CHARGE IN QUESTION IS THE CONSIDERATION FOR A BENEFIT PROVIDED IN FACT FOR THE EXPORTER REPRESENTING AN AMOUNT PROPORTIONATE TO THE SAID BENEFIT OR IF IT RELATED TO A GENERAL SYSTEM OF INTERNAL DUES APPLIED SYSTEMATICALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAME CRITERIA TO DOMESTIC PRODUCTS AND IMPORTED PRODUCTS ALIKE .
12 ALTHOUGH ARTICLE 36 OF THE TREATY PROVIDES THAT ' THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 30 TO 34 SHALL NOT PRECLUDE PROHIBITIONS OR QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTS . . . JUSTIFIED ON GROUNDS OF . . . THE PROTECTION OF HEALTH AND LIFE OF HUMANS , ANIMALS . . . ' , THIS PROVISION CONSTITUTES A DEROGATION FROM THE BASIC RULE THAT ALL OBSTACLES TO THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS BETWEEN MEMBER STATES SHALL BE ELIMINATED AND MUST BE INTERPRETED STRICTLY AND THUS CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD AS AUTHORIZING MEASURES OF A DIFFERENT NATURE FROM THOSE REFERRED TO IN ARTICLES 30 TO 34 .
13 CONSEQUENTLY , ALTHOUGH ARTICLE 36 DOES NOT PREVENT VETERINARY AND PUBLIC HEALTH INSPECTIONS IT CANNOT NEVERTHELESS BE INTERPRETED AS THEREBY PERMITTING THE IMPOSITION OF CHARGES LEVIED ON IMPORTED GOODS SUBJECTED TO THE SAID INSPECTIONS AND INTENDED TO COVER THE COSTS THEREOF .
14 IN FACT THIS CHARGE IS NOT INTRINSICALLY NECESSARY FOR THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 36 AND IS THUS CAPABLE OF CONSTITUTING AN ADDITIONAL BARRIER TO INTRA-COMMUNITY TRADE .
22 THIS SYSTEM IS BASED ON THE TRUST WHICH MEMBER STATES SHOULD PLACE IN EACH OTHER AS FAR AS CONCERNS THE GUARANTEES PROVIDED BY THE INSPECTIONS CARRIED OUT INITIALLY BY THE VETERINARY AND PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES FROM WHICH THE ANIMALS ARE EXPORTED .
28 THESE MEASURES ARE LAID DOWN UNILATERALLY BY EACH MEMBER STATE BUT HAVE BEEN MADE OBLIGATORY AND UNIFORM IN THE CASE OF ALL THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION WHICHEVER THE EXPORTING MEMBER STATE OR THE MEMBER STATE OF DESTINATION MAY BE .
29 ON THE OTHER HAND THEY ARE NOT PRESCRIBED BY EACH MEMBER STATE IN ORDER TO PROTECT SOME INTEREST OF ITS OWN BUT BY THE COUNCIL IN THE GENERAL INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY .
30 THEY CANNOT THEREFORE BE REGARDED AS UNILATERAL MEASURES WHICH HINDER TRADE BUT RATHER AS OPERATIONS INTENDED TO PROMOTE THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS , IN PARTICULAR BY RENDERING INEFFECTIVE THE OBSTACLES TO THIS FREE MOVEMENT WHICH MIGHT BE CREATED BY THE MEASURES FOR VETERINARY AND PUBLIC HEALTH INSPECTIONS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 36 .
34 IT IS A QUESTION MOREOVER OF THE COMPENSATION , JUSTIFIED ON ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL GROUNDS , FOR AN OBLIGATION IMPOSED BY COMMUNITY LAW ON ALL THE MEMBER STATES EQUALLY .
35 THE COSTS OF THE INSPECTION MAY WELL VARY FROM ONE MEMBER STATE TO ANOTHER SO THAT THE FEES MAY PROVE TO BE DIFFERENT ACCORDING TO THE MEMBER STATE WHERE THE INSPECTION IS CARRIED OUT .
36 ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE DESIRABLE TO SEE THESE CHARGES HARMONIZED , THE FACT THAT , IF THEY ARE NOT TO BE DESIGNATED AS CHARGES HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO CUSTOMS DUTIES , THEY MUST NOT EXCEED THE ACTUAL COSTS OF THE OPERATION , REMOVES THEM FROM THE CATEGORY OF PROHIBITED AIDS TO EXPORTS AND PRECLUDES THEM FROM BEING REGARDED AS OBSTACLES TO THE MOVEMENT OF GOODS .

II - THE FEES CHARGED FOR THE SPECIAL VETERINARY AND PUBLIC HEALTH INSPECTIONS OF BOVINE ANIMALS AND SWINE ON THE OCCASION OF THEIR EXPORTATION