JUDGMENT OF 31. 1. 1979 — CASE 34/78 YOSHIDA v KAMER VAN KOOPHANDEL EN FABRIEKEN VOOR FRIESLAND

In Case 34/78

THE COURT composed of: H. Kutscher, President, J. Mertens de Wilmars and Lord Mackenzie Stuart (Presidents of Chambers), A. M. Donner, P. Pescatore, M. Sørensen, A. O'Keeffe, G. Bosco and A. Touffait, Judges Advocate General: F. Capotorti Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts and Issues

I — Summary of the facts and procedure

(a) The validity of Regulation No 2067/77

(b) The interpretation and method of implementing that regulation

II — Summary of the written observations submitted to the Court

A — Observations submitted by Yoshida Nederland B.V.

A. The meaning of Question 1 according to the plaintiff in the main action

Reply to the first sub-question of Question 1

Reply to the second sub-question of Question 1

B. Reply to Question 2 on the invalidity of Regulation No 2067/77 for infringement of Article 5 of Regulation No 802/68 and Articles 30 and 110 of the Treaty

(a) Infringement of Article 5 of Regulation No 802/68

(1) Last operation determining the origin

(2) Vertical integration in one and the same factory

(3) Vertical integration in one and the same group of undertakings

(4) Slide fasteners without a country of origin

(b) Infringement of Articles 30 and 34 of the EEC Treaty

(c) Infringement of Article 110 of the Treaty

C. Reply to Question (3) on the invalidity of Regulation No 2067/77 on other grounds

(a) Restrictions on imports in the EEC

(b) Restrictions on exports from the EEC

(c) Inadequate statement of the reasons upon which it is based

(d) Infringement of the procedural rules laid down in Article 14 of Regulation No 802/68

(e) Carelessness in adopting Regulation No 2067/77

(f) Linguistic differences

(g) Misuse of powers

B — Observations submitted by the Commission

(1) The incompatibility with Article 5 of Regulation No 802/68

(2) The incompatibility with Article 30 of the EEC Treaty

(3) The incompatibility with Article 110 of the EEC Treaty

(4) The application without distinction between Community origin and origin in a Member State (numbered paragraph 4 of the body of the order for reference)

(5) Inadequate statement of reasons for Regulation No 2067/77

(6) Infringement of essential procedural requirements

(7) Carelessness in the preparation of Regulation No 2067/77

(8) Linguistic differences

(9) Misuse of powers

C — Observations submitted by the Netherlands Government

D — Observations submitted by the French Government

E — Observations submitted by the Italian Government

III — Oral procedure

Decision

Costs