Opinion of Mr advocate-general Mayras

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

Introduction

The cultivation in the Netherlands of hyacinth bulbs either for the purpose of marketing them in that state or for producing cut flowers is governed by a Regulation on 29 June 1971 by the Netherlands organization for the production of ornamental flowers — a trade organization under public law — approved by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Such cultivation is conditional upon the obtaining of a cultivation licence granted by the organization, for each cultivation year, firstly to bulbgrowers who prove that they had legally grown hyacinth bulbs during the previous cultivation year and' thereafter, under certain conditions, also to new producers and in particular those who by way of transfer acquired the right to cultivate.

Each licence lays down the area on which the holder may exercise his right of cultivation.

We are therefore dealing with a system which tends not only to control the production of bulbs but also to limit it.

Infringements are punishable by fines.

Mr Van Haaster, a producer of hyacinth bulbs and flowers, was summoned to appear before the police court magistrate in economic matters (Economische Politierechter) of Haarlem for having grown hyacinths without being in possession of a valid licence.

Relying upon Regulation No 234/68 of the Council dated 27 February 1968 on the establishment of a common organization of the market in live trees and other plants, bulbs, roots and the like, cut flowers and ornamental foliage, the defendant argued that the requirement of a cultivation licence was contrary to provisions in this Regulation in that it prohibits, in the internal trade of the Community in these products, any quantitative restriction or measure having equivalent effect.

The national court has referred to you the question whether the Dutch Regulation can be reconciled with the Community provisions.

One must express satisfaction at this request for a preliminary ruling since, on the same question, another economic police court magistrate, — the magistrate for the district of Alkmaar — several weeks before, on 5 November 1973, without referring to this Court, gave a decision to the effect that the Dutch regulation was clearly contrary to Community law and on those grounds discharged another grower summoned for the same offence.

Admittedly, this Court cannot rule directly on whether a national provision is contrary to a Community Regulation, but the elements of fact and of law that emerge from the Court file allow one to reframe the question referred, within the framework of the Article 177 procedure.

In fact it amounts to whether in the abstract the prohibition of quantitative restrictions or of measures having an equivalent effect, under Article 10 (1) of Regulation No 234/68, in trade between Member States must be interpreted as applying also to national measures imposing production quotas.

So as to enable the Court to reply in a helpful way to the judge who referred the case, it is appropriate to analyse the Dutch rules governing hyacinth bulb production and to examine their effect in the light of Community regulations.

I —. This national system contains the following elements:

II —. Let us now turn to the common organization of the market in the sector of live trees and other plants, bulbs, roots and the like, cut flowers and ornamental foliage, established by Regulation No 234/68 of the Council of 27 February 1968, which has been in operation since 1 July 1968.

III —. Two questions therefore arise:

In my opinion therefore the Court should rule that the combined provisions of Article 10 of Regulation No 234/68 and of the other Articles of this Regulation are incompatible with a system of cultivation licences for hyacinth bulbs.

1 Translated from the French.