Opinion of Mr advocate general Reischl

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

The proceedings in which the request for a preliminary ruling arose concern the legality of the imposition of supplementary levies by the Italian Finance Administration on the importation, for processing under customs supervision, of boneless frozen beef and veal coming under Common Customs Tariff heading 02.01 A II, Statistical number 58, which is therefore a product which is subject to Council Regulation No 14/64/EEC of 5 February 1964 on the progressive establishment of a common organization of the market for beef and veal (Journal Officiel 1964 No 34 of 27 February 1964, p. 562).

Article 5 of the above-mentioned regulation provides for the imposition of levies, by the importing Member State, on the importation of calves and adult bovine animals, and also of derived products, from non-member States.

Under Article 12 (2) the imposition of customs duties or charges having equivalent effect on imports from non-member countries, otherwise than as provided in that regulation, is incompatible with the application thereof.

Article 18 permits the Council, acting on a proposal of the Commission, to take, with regard to products coming under the market organization for beef and veal, any measures in derogation from this regulation in respect of the products set out in Article 1, to take account of special circumstances which may exist in regard to such products.

According to Article 16, however, the Member States may also take protective measures. The parts of this provision which are relevant to the present case provide as follows:

On 21 April 1966, considering consumers to be inadequately supplied, the Council, in reliance on Article 18 of Regulation No 14/64/EEC, adopted Regulation No 42/66/EEC (Journal Officiel 1966, No 76 of 27 April 1966, p. 1141), by which Member States were authorized, in derogation from Article 5 of Regulation No 14/64/EEC, for the period from 1 May to 31 July 1966, to suspend the levies on the importation, for processing under Customs supervision, of frozen meat of domestic bovine animals covered by tariff heading 02.01 A from non-member countries.

The Government of the Italian Republic made use of this possibility, and by Circular No 165 of 13 May 1966, confirming telegraphic circular UTCD No 3422 — 3696 of 30 April 1966, suspended the levies on goods of the type in question during the period from 2 May to 31 July 1966. The Commission and the other Member States were duly informed within the prescribed period.

On 23 July 1966, that is, within the period for which the levies were suspended, the Government of the Italian Republic informed the Commission by a telex message from its Permanent Representation that, owing to the persistently depressed state of the beef and veal market, which had worsened in the last few days, it was imposing in reliance on Article 16 of Regulation No 14/64/EEC, with effect from 24 July 1966, a supplementary levy on the importation of cattle and beef and veal from non-member countries at the rate of 60 % of the levy prescribed in Article 5 of the aforesaid regulation. The penultimate paragraph of that message expressly stated: Calves weighing less than 340 kg and intended for fattening and frozen beef and veal intended for industrial processing are excluded from this protective measure.

For the implementation of that protective measure the Italian Ministry of Finance addressed circular U.T.C.D. — 1966.373 — DOG.000 (Protocol No 6363) to the customs offices on 25 July 1966. This circular, in confirmation of the telegraphic circular No 6349/U.T.C. of 23 July 1966, introduced, with effect from 24 July 1966, a supplementary levy on beef and veal products imported from non-member countries at the rate of 60 % of the levy in force at the time of importation. However, in contrast to the telex message sent to the Commission, the seventh subparagraph of the circular expressly directs that there shall likewise be a supplementary levy on frozen beef and veal for processing under customs supervision in accordance with telegraphic circular No 3696 U.T.C.D. of 30 April 1966, whereby the suspension of the levy is maintained.

On 28 July 1966 the Commission, acting under the third subparagraph of Article 16 (2) of Regulation No 14/64/EEC, adopted Decision No 66/474/EEC (Journal Officiel 1966, No 153 of 23 August 1966, p. 2796), Article 1 of which provides as follows:

The Commission based its decision on the consideration that the requirements for a protective measure under Article 16 (1) of Regulation No 14/64/EEC did not exist, since the Italian market in bovine animals was at that time neither suffering, nor threatened with, a serious disturbance. That was clear, in the Commission's view, from the fact that the Italian Republic was continuing to make use of the permission granted in Regulation No 42/66/EEC to suspend the levies as regards certain types of frozen beef and veal intended for processing under customs supervision.

The Italian Government was notified of this decision of the Commission on 28 July 1966.

Also on 28 July 1966, the Council, in reliance on Article 18 of Regulation No 14/64, and acting on a prosposal from the Commission, adopted Decision No 66/455/EEC (Journal Officiel 1966 No 144 of 5 August 1966, p. 2659), by which the Italian Republic was authorized to increase the levies on specified imports of beef and veal from non-member countries under certain conditions and within specified limits. Article 1 of the decision provides as follows:

Article 3 of the decision states:

The Council and the Commission found these measures necessary in order to raise the prices of the imported products to the level of the guide price without adversely affecting the volume of imports more than absolutely necessary, because the prices for adult bovine animals on the Italian market were below the guide price.

The Italian Republic was informed of the decision of the Council on 29 July. In implementation of the above-mentioned decisions of the Commission and the Council the Italian Republic abolished the aforesaid protective measures with effect from 1 August 1966 and availed itself, from the same day, of the Council's authorization to raise the levies in accordance with the methods of calculation described above.

On 29 July 1966 Salumificio di Cornuda S.p.A. informed the customs authorities in Turin of the impon from Argentina of 179179 kg of frozen beef and veal for processing under customs supervision. A later check revealed that the supplementary levy had not been charged in respect of this impon. By a decision served on 8 September 1971 the responsible authorities demanded from Salumificio payment of 16817380 Italian lire in respect of the supplementary levy.

The company disputed this decision before the Tribunale, Turin, which gave judgment for the plaintiff on 5 August 1972.

On appeal by the State Finance Administration the Cone d'Appello, Turin, quashed the judgment of the lower court by a judgment of 22 May 1975 and declared the demand for payment of the supplementary levy lawful.

The appellant appealed against this decision to the Corte Suprema di Cassazione [Supreme Court of Appeal] which, by a decision of 17 February 1978, stayed the proceedings pursuant to Article 177 of the EEC Treaty and requested from the Court of Justice an interpretation of Articles 189 and 191 of the EEC Treaty, the fourth subparagraph of Article 16 (2) of Regulation No 14/64 of the Council, Articles 1 and 3 of Council Decision No 66/455 and Article 1 of Commission Decision No 66/474. The court making the reference requests, having regard to the aforesaid provisions, answers to the following questions:

I —. Before going into the question raised, I should first like to draw the Court's attention to the fact, apparent from the case file, that the text by which the Italian Government notified the Commission of the protective measure does not accord with the wording of the circular by which the protective measure was brought into operation in Italy. Whilst the Italian Government's notification expressly excludes from the protective measure beef and veal intended for processing under customs supervision, the interval circular gives instructions for the imposition of a supplementary levy on beef and veal of the type in question. So the Italian Government introduced a protective measure of the type in -question in respect of frozen boneless beef and veal, although it had not notified the Commission thereof, but, on the contrary, had expressly excluded the meat in question from the protective measure notified. However, under the first subparagraph of Article 16 (2) of Regulation No 14/64 such a measure should have been notified to the other Member States and to the Commission not later than the date of its entry into force.

II —. In case the Court is not able to endorse this solution, which I tend to favour myself, I should now like to examine the questions referred to the Court. I shall apply myself first to the task of answering the second question, which concerns the direct applicability of Article 1 of Commission Decision No 66/474 of 28 July 1966. Closely connected therewith is the third question, in which the Corte Suprema di Cassazione seeks information as to when the decision — assuming it to be directly applicable — takes effect. Then, in the context of an examination of those two problems, we must also consider the matter raised in the first question, namely the relationship between Council Decision No 66/455 of 28 July 1966 and Commission Decision No 66/474 of the same day.

1. A constant theme of the Court of Justice's case-law, beginning with Case 9/70 (Franz Grad v Finanzamt Traunstein, Judgment of 6 October 1970; [1970] ECR 825), has been the recognition that even decisions and directives which are in principle addressed only to States can produce direct effects in the legal relationship between Member States and individuals if the following requirements are met: the obligation imposed on Member States by the decision must be clear and unambiguous, it must not be dependent on any condition and in particular it must not leave the addressee any margin of discretion as to the manner of its implementation. If these criteria are met, a decision directly obliges the authorities and courts of the Member States to protect the interests of individuals affected by a breach thereof. Thus the Court has emphasized on several occasions that particularly in cases where, for example, the Community authorities by means of a decision have imposed an obligation on a Member State or on all the Member States to act in a certain way, the effectiveness (l'effet utile) of such a measure would be weakened if the nationals of that State could not invoke it in the courts and the national courts could not take it into consideration as part of Community law (Case 9/70, Franz Grad v Finanzamt Traunstein, Judgment of 6 October 1970; [1970] ECR at p. 837).

2. That leads to a further question: at what time did those direct effects commence? As we know, the Commission's decision was notified to the Italian Republic on 28 July 1966, that is to say one day before the imports with which we are concerned.

3. Since that date is prior to the import of the goods in question we can leave aside the question whether retroactive force should be attributed to the decision.

III —. Accordingly, I propose that the request for a preliminary ruling be answered as follows:

1 Translated from the German.