Opinion of Mr Advocate General Capotorti

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. In this reference for a preliminary ruling, the Court is once again asked to consider the scope of the concept of measures having equivalent effect (to quantitative restrictions on imports) contained in Article 30 of the EEC Treaty. It is necessary to interpret that provision in a fresh light in order to establish whether and within what limits, if any, a Member State is empowered to require importers of and traders in articles made of or plated with precious metal to hallmark such anieles in accordance with specific rules.

2. To begin with, it is necessary to establish what the legislation in force in Belgium lays down as regards the hallmarking of articles made of precious metals. The aforementioned Royal Decree No 80 of 1939 which, as successively amended, still governs the working of and trade in gold and silver, introduced a guarantee as to fineness in the case of articles made of precious metals. In Article 1 (as amended by the Regent's Decree of 28 February 1947) it provides that manufacturers of gold, silver and platinum articles shall guarantee the fineness of the alloy used by stamping the article with two hallmarks. One of those hallmarks shall constitute the manufacturer's own hallmark. The other shall indicate the fineness. The fourth paragraph of the same provision provides that importers of and traders in articles made of precious metals shall be treated as manufacturers in respect of articles sold by them which do not bear the hallmarks prescribed by this decree. In Article 10 that decree provides that silver-plated articles (which, as I have stated, are relevant for the purposes of the proceedings pending before the national court) must also bear two hallmarks, one constituting the manufacturer's own hallmark ... and the other bearing a numeral indicating the number of grams of pure silver with which the article is coated.

3. Does a system of the type described give rise to effects equivalent to quantitative restrictions on imports? In my opinion, it undoubtedly constitutes an obstacle to intra-Community trade in products plated with precious metal, on the assumption that the obligation relating to hallmarking in specific forms may not be derogated from in the case of such products (for example silver-plated cutlery) in the sense that the importer and the trader are always required to hallmark articles of that kind from abroad (as is the case in Belgium).

4. Counsel for the Belgian Government, supported by the United Kingdom, maintains in the alternative that legislation of the kind under consideration is lawful inasmuch as its purpose is to protect consumers and fair trading. That argument is worthy of consideration.

5. The Commission recognizes that the system of hallmarking articles which are either made of precious metals or are silver-plated has as its purpose to protect consumers and ensure fair trading. In its opinion, however, it is unlawful to require a fresh hallmark to be impressed on the article where it has already been stamped with one in the country of origin or to impose the use of a hallmark in a specific form.

6. On the basis of the above considerations, I propose that the Court should answer the question submitted by the Tribunal de Première Instance, Brussels, by judgment of 20 July 1981, as follows:

1 Translated from ihr Iulian.