OPINION OF MR ROEMER — CASE 32/64 ITALY v COMMISSION

Mr President, Members of the Court,

At the time of the establishment of the Common Customs Tariff for the products in list G in Annex I of the EEC Treaty (Agreement of 2 March 1960, Official Journal 1960, p. 1825), the Member States of the Community agreed in Protocol No VIII concerning silk (raw, tariff heading 50.02) annexed to the Agreement to express their support for the application of Article 226 of the Treaty entailing the isolation, for a period of six years from the signing of the present Protocol, of the Italian market in those products appearing in Chapter 50 of the Common Customs Tariff for which such isolation appears necessary, both as regards other Member States and third countries.

Accordingly during the years which followed, the Italian Government regularly submitted requests to the Commission of the EEC and there followed Decisions of 28 February 1962 (Official Journal 1962, p. 1092), 20 March 1963 (Official Journal 1963, p. 1085) and 22 May 1964 (Official Journal 1964, p. 1373) whereby it was authorized each time to take protective measures for a period of one year or thereabouts for certain products appearing in Chapter 50 of the Common Customs Tariff. In the first place these protective measures maintained the rates of customs duty in force on 2 March 1960 in relation to other Member States on woven silk fabrics and only reduced them to 10.5 % on certain other fabrics. By virtue of the second authorization the Italian Government was able to apply the rates of customs duty in force on 2 March 1960 on woven silk fabrics and to impose duties (varying between 7 % and 9.6 %) on other clearly-defined fabrics. Finally, for the various fabrics appearing under tariff heading 50.09 of the Italian customs tariff, the third Decision of the Commission authorized the Italian Government to apply in relation to other Member States rates of duty varying between 5.6 % and 9.5 %, that is to say, rates lower than those of the previous year.

It is this Decision which is the subject of the present application for annulment. According to the Italian Government it must be annulled because the protective measures in question are insufficient, that is, they fall short of what is sought in its last request: the extension of validity of the protective measures granted for 1963-1964.

Concurrently with the application and in the same document the Italian Government requested that operation of the contested Decision be provisionally suspended in order to avoid irreparable damage to Italian silk production.

Legal consideration

I — The application for suspension

Before making a legal assessment of the facts I must say a few words on the application for suspension on which no ruling has as yet been given.

The following considerations arise:

II — The substance of the case

(1). As to the substance it seems advisable first of all to show how the Commission assessed the extent of the necessary protective measures. In my opinion this will facilitate consideration of the legal position which it has adopted and at the same time will lead to a better understanding of the arguments of the applicant.

(2). The applicant maintains that this method is inadequate for two basic reasons.

III — Summary and conclusions

For these reasons I am of the opinion that the application of the Italian Government for the annulment of the Decision of the Commission of 22 May 1964 should be dismissed as unfounded. Likewise the application to suspend the operation of the contested Decision should be dismissed. The applicant must bear the costs.

1 Translated from the German.