JUDGMENT OF 1. 10. 1974 — CASE 14/74 NORDDEUTSCHES VIEH- UND FLEISCHKONTOR v HAUPTZOLLAMT HAMBURG-JONAS

In Case 14/74 Reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Finanzgericht Hamburg for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court between

THE COURT composed of R. Lecourt, President, A. M. Donner and M. Sørensen, Presidents of Chambers, R. Monaco, J. Mertens de Wilmars, P. Pescatore, H. Kutscher, C. Ó Dálaigh (Rapporteur), and Lord Mackenzie Stuart, Judges, Advocate-General: G. Reischl Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts

I — Facts and procedure

II — Observations submitted pursuant to Article 20 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC

(a) Observations submitted by the plaintiff

(b) Observations submitted by the German Government

(c) Observations submitted by the Commission

Law

This argument must accordingly be rejected.

This argument must therefore be rejected.

Costs

I —. Facts and procedure

II —. Observations submitted pursuant to Article 20 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC

(a). Observations submitted by the plaintiff

(b). Observations submitted by the German Government

(c). Observations submitted by the Commission

1. By order dated 30 January 1974, received at the Court Registry on 1 March 1974, the Finanzgericht Hamburg, in pursuance of Article 177 of the EEC Treaty, raised the question of the interpretation of Articles 6 (1) and 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 177/67 of the Council of 27 June 1967 and of Article 4 (1) and (2) (d) of Regulation (EEC) No 802/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 in conjunction with the Protocol on German Internal Trade and connected problems annexed to the EEC Treaty.

2. Under Article 6 (1) of Regulation No 177/67 the refund payable on pigmeat exported from the Community is subject to proof that it is of Community origin.

3. The plaintiff in the main action relies on Article 6 of Regulation No 177/67 to maintain that pigmeat which has been brought into the Federal Republic of Germany from the German Democratic Republic under the terms of the so-called inter-zonal trade should be regarded as a product of Community origin.

4. Regulation No 802/68 gives a Community definition to the concept of the origin of goods for purposes of… the uniform application of all measures adopted, in relation to the exportation of goods, by the Community or by Member States.

5. The plaintiff in the main action maintains nevertheless that, in the light of the provisions of Article 1 of the Protocol on German Internal Trade, Article 4 of Regulation No 802/68 must be interpreted as meaning that goods imported into the Federal Republic of Germany from the German Democratic Republic must be treated as products originating in the Federal Republic of Germany.

6. Article 1 of the Protocol states Since trade between the German territories subject to the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany and the German territories in which the Basic Law does not apply is a part of German internal trade, the application of this Treaty in Germany requires no change in the treatment currently accorded this trade.

7. The plaintiff then states that since under the Protocol the products cannot be regarded as originating in a third country, they must necessarily be regarded as having the characteristics set out in Article 9 (2) of the Treaty and must be regarded as originating in a Member State.

8. This argument, based only on the general scheme established by Articles 9 and 10 of the Treaty, loses sight of the fact that the Protocol on German Internal Trade is an integral part of the Treaty, and under this Protocol, the German Democratic Republic is neither a Member State of the EEC nor, as regards German internal trade, a third country, but a special system is applied to it.

9. The plaintiff in the main action claims further that it may be deduced from the fact that a special reason has been given in the Regulation only for Article 7 that therefore Article 6 serves no object of market regulation independent of Article 7 and its sole objective is to make clear that there should be no refund in respect of goods which have been imported from third countries.

10. This argument disregards the system established in Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation No 177/67.

11. Further, the organization of the agricultural markets has established price mechanisms intended to give agricultural producers certain guarantees of income providing, in the case of export to third countries, refunds granted from Community resources.

12. The question raised must therefore be answered in the negative.

13. The costs incurred by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Commission of the European Communities, which have submitted observations to the Court, cannot be reimbursed.

On those grounds, THE COURT in answer to the question referred to it by the Finanzgericht Hamburg by order of 30 January 1974, hereby rules: