Opinion of Mr Advocate General Capotorti

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. By an order of 5 June 1980 the Finanzgericht [Finance Court] Hamburg referred to the Court of Justice numerous preliminary questions, eight to be precise, which stem from an action involving somewhat unusual facts. In order to summarize them it is necessary to explain that certain shipping companies in the Federal Republic of Germany, above all in Flensburg and Hamburg, organize very short cruises (generally lasting a few hours) leaving from and returning to German ports on the Baltic Sea or the North Sea. They have acquired the nickname of butter-buying cruises because their essential, or indeed only, attraction is to afford passengers the opportunity of acquiring certain goods free of customs duties, indirect taxes or any other charges.

2. The first question in Group I is worded as follows:

3. The first question of the second group closely parallels the question which I have just considered, but is concerned with the different matter of exemption — from turnover tax and excise duty. It asks :

4. In the second question of the first group the Finanzgericht Hamburg asks :

5. In the second question of the second group the Finanzgericht Hamburg asks: Does Council Directive No 69/169/EEC, as last amended, contain definitive rules for the exemption from turnover tax and excise duty of goods in travellers' personal luggage or may Member States independently grant goods in travellers' personal luggage exemption from turnover tax and excise duty going beyond the scope of the directive?

6. In the third question of the first group the German court asks :

7. The third question of the second group closely parallels the question which has just been considered. It asks :

8. In the fourth question of the first group the Finanzgericht Hamburg asks :

9. The fifth question of the first group is dependent on an affirmative reply to the previous question. Thus it presupposes that the Court will declare Regulation No 3023/77 invalid; in that case the court trying the main action wishes to have a reply to the following question:

10. On the basis of the arguments which are set out above, I therefore propose that the Court should reply to the questions submitted by the Finanzgericht Hamburg by order of 5 June 1980 with the following ruling:

1 Translated from the Italian.