Opinion of Mr Advocate General Capotorti

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. The actual circumstances which have given rise to this reference for a preliminary ruling may be summarized as follows: the Belgian State subjects imports of fish to a complex system of public health controls and requires importers to pay certain sums by way of inspection levies. Both companies, United Foods and Van den Abeele, imported into Belgium quantities of fish from other Member States and paid the levies, which they regard as contrary to the EEC Treaty, subject to reservations. They subsequently instituted proceedings against the Belgian State in the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Bruges, for the recovery of the sums paid. The questions formulated under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Court trying the main action deal in substance with two types of problem: in the first place, an assessment of the health control measures of the kind described in the light of the prohibition of measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions on imports (Article 30), bearing in mind however that this prohibition may be derogated from by virtue of Article 36 and, secondly, an assessment of the inspection levies imposed on importers in relation to Articles 9 and 12 (which prohibit any charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties) or Article 95 (which prohibits any kind of internal taxation which is discriminatory in nature).

2. In the first question, the national court asks: Must Article 30 et seq. of the EEC Treaty be interpreted as meaning that public health inspection, carried out at the frontier when fish is imported, and being compulsory and systematic in nature, be regarded as a measure having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions on imports. But the question goes beyond compulsory health inspections in general; the sentence referred to above is qualified by several specific instances which, although put forward as equally hypothetical features of control, reflect all the details of the system in force in Belgium. The court trying the main action refers, in great detail, to: (a) the duty on the part of the importer to notify the competent administrative department in writing, at least 24 hours before importation, of the nature, quantity and origin of the goods, specifying the day and time of importation as well as the customs office through which it is to take place; (b) the fact that importation is permissible only through the customs offices designated by the authorities on the day and at the times fixed by the latter; (c) the determination by law of the requirements which must be met by the containers, packing and ice used; (d) the obligation to affix to every package the inspection marks prescribed by the authorities; (e) the requirement that consignments of imported fish must be accompanied by a health certificate issued by the competent authority of the country of origin attesting that the fish has been inspected and declared fit for consumption on the day of despatch; the certificate must be drawn up in accordance with a standard form prescribed by the authorities of the importing Member State.

3. In the second question (which arises only if the answer given to the first question is in the affirmative), the Belgian court asks: Must Article 36 of the EEC Treaty be interpreted as meaning that public health inspection of the type described in the first question is justified on the ground of the protection of public health which such inspection is intended to achieve. In this connexion, I would point out that when it refers to control of the type described the court trying the main action evidently has in mind all the characteristics of the system of control which are set forth in detail in the first question. These characteristics must therefore be taken into account when answering the question.

4. The purpose of the third question submitted by the Belgian court is as follows: Are the inspection levies which are imposed on importers in order to cover the costs of the inspection described in the first question to be regarded as charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties within the meaning of Article 9 et seq. of the EEC Treaty or as internal charges within the meaning of Article 95 of the EEC Treaty, if:

5. In view of the argument which I have propounded in relation to the third question, no purpose would be served by considering the fourth question which has expressly been made conditional upon the classification of the inspection levies under discussion as internal charges within the scope of Article 95.

In conclusion, therefore, for the above reasons, I am of the opinion that the Court should answer the questions referred to it by the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Bruges, by judgment of 5 March 1980, as follows:

1 Translated from the Italian.