Opinion of Mr advocate general Capotorti

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. This Court has had many occasions upon which to interpret the concept of measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions (on exports or imports) contained in Articles 30 and 34 of the EEC Treaty. The present dispute will allow that case-law to be expanded and will go towards defining in greater detail the meaning of Article 30 and its field of application.

2. In my opinion, a national law having the content which I have indicated amounts to a complete barrier on intra-Community trade in the product in question. Indeed, the impossibility of carrying or of using in any manner, for human consumption, certain types of vinegar totally prevents their importation from other Member States.

3. It is true that, notwithstanding the prohibitions contained in Articles 30 and 34 of the EEC Treaty, Member States are not entirely deprived of the power of promulgating, where certain conditions are satisfied, provisions which impose a direct or indirect obstacle to trade within the Community. In that regard, the judgment of 20 February 1979 in Case 120/78, REWE ν Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein [1979] ECR 649, stated that Member States retain the power to introduce restrictions which are necessary in order to satisfy mandatory requirements relating in particular to the effectiveness of fiscal supervision, the protection of public health, the fairness of commercial transactions and the defence of the consumer. As I observed in the opinion which I delivered on 27 September 1979 in Case 15/79, Groenveld ν Produktschap voor Vee en Vlees, that list (which, as the expression in particular which precedes it signifies, is purely illustrative) only partly corresponds to Article 36 of the EEC Treaty and recognizes in broader terms the lawfulness of national rules departing from the Community prohibitions subject to the condition that those rules serve a purpose which is in the general interest and such as to take precedence over the requirements of the free movement of goods, which constitutes one of the fundamental rules of the Community (paragraph 14 of the decision in the above-mentioned judgment of 20 February 1979).

4. In conclusion, therefore, I consider that the question framed by the Pretore, Bolzano, by order of 26 October 1979 calls for the following answer:

1 Translated from the Italian.