1 BY A JUDGMENT OF 30 JULY 1971 WHICH WAS RECEIVED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 2 AUGUST 1971, THE " COLLEGE VAN BEROEP VOOR HET BEDRIJFSLEVEN " REQUESTED THE COURT TO GIVE A PRELIMINARY RULING ON THE INTERPRETATION OF VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY AND OF RULES OF SECONDARY LAW TOGETHER WITH THE CONTENT OF VARIOUS CONCEPTS ADOPTED BY THE TREATY AND THOSE RULES . THE FIRST QUESTION
2 THE COURT IS FIRST OF ALL ASKED WHETHER THE FACT THAT VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY AND OF REGULATIONS CONFER POWERS OR IMPOSE OBLIGATIONS UPON THE MEMBER STATES IMPLIES THAT THE LATTER MAY ONLY TRANSFER THOSE POWERS OR OBLIGATIONS TO NATIONAL AUTHORITIES BY EXPRESS PROVISION .
3 ALTHOUGH UNDER ARTICLE 5 OF THE TREATY THE MEMBER STATES ARE OBLIGED TO TAKE ALL APPROPRIATE MEASURES, WHETHER GENERAL OR PARTICULAR, TO ENSURE FULFILMENT OF THE OBLIGATIONS ARISING OUT OF THE TREATY, IT IS FOR THEM TO DETERMINE WHICH INSTITUTIONS WITHIN THE NATIONAL SYSTEM SHALL BE EMPOWERED TO ADOPT THE SAID MEASURES .
4 THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION MUST THEREFORE BE THAT WHEN PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY OR OF REGULATIONS CONFER POWER OR IMPOSE OBLIGATIONS UPON THE STATES FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMUNITY LAW THE QUESTION OF HOW THE EXERCISE OF SUCH POWERS AND THE FULFILMENT OF SUCH OBLIGATIONS MAY BE ENTRUSTED BY MEMBER STATES TO SPECIFIC NATIONAL BODIES IS SOLELY A MATTER FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM OF EACH STATE . SECOND QUESTION
5 THE SECOND QUESTION ASKS WHETHER THE CONCEPTS OF " QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTS AND MEASURES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT " OR OF " QUOTAS " REFERRED TO BY ARTICLES 30 TO 32 AND 34 OF THE TREATY AND BY REGULATIONS NOS 159/66 ( OJ 1966, NO 192 ) AND 2513/69 ( OJ 1969, L 318 ) ALSO APPLY TO NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS PROHIBITING IMPORTS AND EXPORTS WITHOUT A LICENCE BUT WHICH IN FACT ARE NOT APPLIED BECAUSE EXEMPTIONS ARE GRANTED FROM THE PROHIBITION AND, WHERE THIS IS NOT SO, BECAUSE THE LICENCE IS ALWAYS ISSUED ON REQUEST .
6 THE QUESTION PUT REFERS BOTH TO THE SYSTEM OF QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS ON INTRA-COMMUNITY TRADE AND THE SYSTEM OF SUCH RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE WITH THIRD COUNTRIES .
7 IT IS HOWEVER CLEAR FROM THE SCHEME OF THE TREATY THAT THOSE TWO SYSTEMS MUST BE DISTINGUISHED .
8 UNDER ARTICLES 30 AND 34 ( 1 ) OF THE TREATY QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS AND MEASURES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT ARE PROHIBITED BETWEEN MEMBER STATES BOTH WITH REGARD TO IMPORTS AND EXPORTS .
9 CONSEQUENTLY, APART FROM THE EXCEPTIONS FOR WHICH PROVISION IS MADE BY COMMUNITY LAW ITSELF THOSE PROVISIONS PRECLUDE THE APPLICATION TO INTRA-COMMUNITY TRADE OF A NATIONAL PROVISION WHICH REQUIRES, EVEN PURELY AS A FORMALITY, IMPORT OR EXPORT LICENCES OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR PROCEDURE .
10 ON THE OTHER HAND IN TRADE WITH THIRD COUNTRIES THE APPLICATION OF QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS AND OF MEASURES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT FORMS PART OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY UNDER ARTICLE 113 OF THE TREATY AND THE PROVISIONS ON THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY, IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 40 ( 3 ), WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF " COMMON MACHINERY FOR STABILIZING IMPORTS OR EXPORTS ".
11 IT EMERGES FROM THE FILE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT THAT THE DISPUTE BROUGHT BEFORE THE COLLEGE VAN BEROEP VOOR HET BEDRIJFSLEVEN AROSE IN THE CONTEXT NOT OF INTRA-COMMUNITY TRADE BUT OF THE APPLICATION OF REGULATION NO 2513/69 WHICH IS CONCERNED SOLELY WITH THE SYSTEMS OF IMPORTING FRUIT AND VEGETABLES PRODUCED IN THIRD COUNTRIES .
12 CONSEQUENTLY, THE QUESTION PUT BY THE NATIONAL COURT MUST BE CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO THE SYSTEM OF EXTERNAL TRADE SO DEFINED .
13 ARTICLE 1 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 2513/69 PROVIDES THAT " UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED IN COMMUNITY PROVISIONS OR DEROGATIONS ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL " THERE SHALL BE PROHIBITED " THE APPLICATION OF ANY QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS " ON IMPORTS FROM THIRD COUNTRIES " AND ALL MEASURES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT ".
14 ARTICLE 2 OF THIS REGULATION PROVIDES THAT DEROGATIONS MAY BE MADE FROM THIS PRINCIPLE IF THE COMMUNITY MARKET IN ONE OR MORE OF THE SAID PRODUCTS IS IN DANGER OF UNDERGOING " OWING TO IMPORTS OR EXPORTS, SERIOUS DISTURBANCES CAPABLE OF JEOPARDIZING THE OBJECTIVES OF ARTICLE 39 OF THE TREATY ".
15 THE QUESTION PUT TO THE COURT THUS INVOLVES AN EXAMINATION OF WHETHER REGULATION NO 2513/69 CAN BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MEMBER STATE BY MEANS OF LEGISLATION BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF A GENERAL PROHIBITION ON IMPORTS UNLESS A LICENCE IS GRANTED, WITH APPROPRIATE EXEMPTIONS, OR APPLIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SYSTEM OF " ALL LICENCES GRANTED " IN SO FAR AS COMMUNITY LAW PROVIDES FOR FREEDOM OF TRADE WITH THIRD COUNTRIES .
16 THE PROHIBITION ARISING FROM ARTICLE 1 OF REGULATION NO 2513/69 IS NOT ABSOLUTE SINCE, AS IS CLEAR FROM RECITALS 5 AND 6 OF THE PREAMBLE AND FROM THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 1 AND 2 THEMSELVES, THE MEMBER STATES MAY BE EMPOWERED TO TAKE CERTAIN PROTECTIVE MEASURES IN PARTICULAR IN THE CASE OF A THREAT OF DISTURBANCE OF THE MARKETS THROUGH IMPORTS FROM THIRD COUNTRIES .
17 THE APPLICATION OF A BODY OF RULES LAID DOWN BY LEGISLATION AND BASED ON A GENERAL PROHIBITION ON IMPORTS WITHOUT A LICENCE, IN CONJUNCTION WITH A SYSTEM OF GENERAL EXEMPTIONS, IS THUS, IN THE PRESENT STATE OF THE LAW, COMPATIBLE WITH THE GENERAL SCHEME OF REGULATION NO 2513/69 .
18 IN THE PRESENT STATE OF THE LAW THE " ALL LICENCES GRANTED " SYSTEM IS NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE GENERAL SCHEME OF THIS REGULATION IF LICENCES ARE AUTOMATICALLY ISSUED TO EVERY APPLICANT FREE OF CHARGE AND WITHOUT DELAY .