1 BY ORDERS DATED 5 FEBRUARY 1973 AND 18 JUNE 1973, FILED AT THE COURT OF JUSTICE ON 21 FEBRUARY 1973 AND 22 JUNE 1973 RESPECTIVELY, THE HESSISCHES FINANZGERICHT REFERRED, UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY A QUESTION ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLES 2 AND 4 OF REGULATION NO 19 OF THE COUNCIL DATED 4 APRIL 1962 ( P . I . 1962, NO 30 ), CONCERNING THE GRADUAL ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMON ORGANISATION OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETS IN THE CEREALS SECTOR;
2 THE QUESTION IS WHETHER, IN CALCULATING THE LEVY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABOVE REGULATION, VARIOUS COSTS OF IMPORT SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FROM THE THRESHOLD PRICE, IN PARTICULAR, COSTS OF EXAMINING PLANTS, COSTS OF INSPECTION, COSTS OF CUSTOMS CLEARANCE, BANK CHARGES AND EXPENSES RELATING TO PRESENTATION OF DOCUMENTS AND TO THE MANDATORY SECURITY;
3 THE QUESTION SEEKS NOT ONLY AN INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLES 2 AND 4 OF REGULATION NO 19/62, BUT ALSO AN ANSWER BY THE COURT TO THE PARTICULAR PROBLEMS RAISED BY THE APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY LAW TO THE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES FORMING THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE MAIN ACTION; HOWEVER, THE COURT IS NOT ENABLED UNDER ARTICLE 177 TO APPLY THE TREATY TO SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES, AND MUST THEREFORE EXTRACT, FROM THE WORDING OF THE ORDER REFERRING THE MATTER, THOSE QUESTIONS ALONE WHICH RELATE TO THE INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY LAW; THE QUESTION MAY THUS BE UNDERSTOOD AS ASKING IN GENERAL WHICH ITEMS OF IMPORT COSTS MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF THE LEVY .
4 BY ARTICLE 2 OF REGULATION NO 19/62, THE AMOUNT OF THE INTRA-COMMUNITY LEVY UPON CEREAL IMPORTS SUCH AS COMMON WHEAT AND BARLEY WAS EQUAL TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FREE-AT-FRONTIER PRICE FOR THE PRODUCT AS BETWEEN THE EXPORTING AND IMPORTING MEMBER STATES, AND THE THRESHOLD PRICE WITHIN THE IMPORTING STATE; UNDER ARTICLE 4 OF THIS REGULATION, THE THRESHOLD PRICE WAS FIXED ANNUALLY BY THE MEMBER STATES FOR AN IDENTICAL STANDARD QUALITY, IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE SELLING PRICE FOR THE IMPORTED PRODUCT IN THE MARKETING CENTRE OF THE MAIN DEFICIT AREA WITHIN THE RELEVANT MEMBER STATE WAS EQUAL TO THE BASIC TARGET PRICE LAID DOWN UNDER ARTICLE 5 OF THE SAID REGULATION;
5 IN ORDER TO AVOID DISTURBANCES RESULTING FROM THE IMPORT OF LOW-PRICED GOODS, THE THRESHOLD PRICE PROVIDED BY REGULATION 19/62 WAS INTENDED, BY MEANS OF LEVIES, TO FIX THE LEVEL TO WHICH THE PRICE OF THE IMPORTED PRODUCT MUST BE RAISED TO PRECLUDE ITS BEING OFFERED FOR SALE ON THE MARKET IN QUESTION AT A PRICE LOWER THAN THE BASIC TARGET PRICE; TO MEET THIS CONDITION THE PRICE OF THE IMPORTED PRODUCT AFTER CROSSING THE FRONTIER HAD TO BE THE SAME AS THE BASIC TARGET PRICE, AND THUS THE THRESHOLD PRICE HAD TO BE EQUAL TO THE BASIC TARGET PRICE LESS MARKETING COSTS;
6 MARKETING COSTS INCLUDE THOSE EXPENSES INHERENT IN THE PROCEDURES AND FORMALITIES OF IMPORT, WHICH EVERY IMPORTER MUST INEVITABLY INCUR, AS WELL AS THE NORMAL EXPENSE OF TRANSPORTING THOSE GOODS TO THE DECISIVE MARKETING STAGE IN THE MAIN DEFICIT AREA . HOWEVER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL SYSTEM OF LEVIES PROVIDED UNDER REGULATION 19/62, MARKETING COSTS SHOULD NOT BE CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF COSTS ACTUALLY INCURRED BY THE IMPORTER FOR A SPECIFIC DELIVERY - THESE BEING LARGELY DEPENDENT UPON DECISIONS MADE BY THE IMPORTER BUT SHOULD BE CALCULATED AT A FLAT RATE IN RELATION TO THOSE EXPENSES WHICH AN IMPORTER OF THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION MUST INEVITABLY INCUR;
7 THUS THE QUESTION SHOULD BE ANSWERED TO THE EFFECT THAT ARTICLES 2 AND 4 OF REGULATION 19/62 OF THE COUNCIL MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT THE ITEMS OF IMPORT COSTS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF THE LEVY ARE THOSE WHICH EVERY IMPORTER MUST INEVITABLY INCUR IN COMPLYING WITH THE PROCEDURES AND LEGAL FORMALITIES NECESSARY FOR THE IMPORT OF THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION AND IN TRANSPORTING THOSE PRODUCTS TO THE FIRST WHOLESALE MARKETING STAGE IN THE AREA TO WHICH THE BASIC TARGET PRICE APPLIES;