1BY AN ORDER OF 12 APRIL 1978 , WHICH WAS RECEIVED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 19 MAY 1978 , THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE , QUEEN ' S BENCH DIVISION , COMMERCIAL COURT , REFERRED TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY A QUESTION RELATING TO THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 60 ( 2 ) OF THE ACT CONCERNING THE CONDITIONS OF ACCESSION AND THE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE TREATIES ANNEXED TO THE TREATY OF 22 JANUARY 1972 CONCERNING THE ACCESSION OF THE KINGDOM OF DENMARK , IRELAND AND THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND TO THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY AND TO THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ' ' THE ACT OF ACCESSION ' ' ).
2THE QUESTION WAS RAISED IN THE CONTEXT OF A DISPUTE BETWEEN A NETHERLANDS COMPANY WHICH EXPORTED POTATOES AND THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND IT RELATES TO THE REFUSAL OF THE LATTER AUTHORITIES TO PERMIT THE ENTRY OF A CONSIGNMENT OF POTATOES WHICH ARRIVED AT GREAT YARMOUTH ON 6 JANUARY 1978 .
3THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN ACTION SOUGHT A DECLARATION FROM THE NATIONAL COURT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE UNITED KINGDOM IS NOT SINCE 1 JANUARY 1978 ENTITLED TO PROHIBIT THE IMPORTATION OF POTATOES FROM MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY WHILST THE DEFENDANTS RELIED ON ARTICLE 60 ( 2 ) OF THE ACT OF ACCESSION ; THE NATIONAL COURT THEREFORE ASKED THE COURT OF JUSTICE TO GIVE A PRELIMINARY RULING ON THE FOLLOWING QUESTION : ' ' WHETHER IN THE CASE OF AN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT WHICH WAS NOT COVERED AT THE DATE OF ACCESSION BY A COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET AND IS STILL NOT SO COVERED ON 1 JANUARY 1978 ARTICLE 60 ( 2 ) OF THE ACT OF ACCESSION OR ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW PERMITS THE RETENTION OF QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTS IN RESPECT OF THAT PRODUCT AFTER 31 DECEMBER 1977 ( IF THEY FORMED PART OF A NATIONAL MARKET ORGANIZATION ON THE DATE OF ACCESSION ) TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO ENSURE THE MAINTENANCE OF THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION AND UNTIL THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET FOR THAT PRODUCT IS IMPLEMENTED? ' '
4THE MEASURES TO WHICH THE NATIONAL COURT REFERS HAVE FORMED THE SUBJECT OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER ARTICLE 169 OF THE EEC TREATY BROUGHT BY THE COMMISSION IN CASE 231/78 AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM FOR FAILURE TO FULFIL ITS OBLIGATIONS .
5IN SUBSTANCE THE LEGAL QUESTION EXAMINED IN THE CONTEXT OF CASE 231/78 IS IDENTICAL TO THAT RAISED BY THE QUESTION FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE .
6BY JUDGMENT DELIVERED THIS DAY THE COURT OF JUSTICE HAS RULED THAT , BY NOT REPEALING OR AMENDING BEFORE THE END OF 1977 THE PROVISIONS OF ITS NATIONAL LAW WHICH HAVE THE EFFECT OF RESTRICTING IMPORTS OF POTATOES , THE UNITED KINGDOM HAS FAILED TO FULFIL ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE TREATY .
7IT IS SUFFICIENT THEREFORE TO REFER TO THE JUDGMENT IN CASE 231/78 THE TEXT OF WHICH IS ANNEXED TO THIS JUDGMENT ( SEE P . 1447 ).
8TAKING ACCOUNT OF THE GROUNDS REFERRED TO IN THAT JUDGMENT THE QUESTION PUT BY THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE MAY BE ANSWERED TO THE EFFECT THAT ARTICLE 60 ( 2 ) OF THE ACT OF ACCESSION CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A SPECIAL PROVISION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RESERVATION SET OUT IN ARTICLE 9 ( 2 ) OF THAT ACT WITH THE RESULT THAT BY VIRTUE OF THE LATTER PROVISION ITS APPLICATION TERMINATED AT THE END OF 1977 .