Opinion of Mr Advocate General Darmon

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. In compliance with an undertaking given in 1962 within the framework of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) the Community opens each year a tariff quota for frozen beef and veal originating in nonmember countries. Since 1980 the quota has been fixed at 50000 tonnes. The quota for 1983 was opened and allocated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3225/82 of 23 November 1982 (Official Journal L 340, p. 4). Imports are subject to a single Common Customs Tariff duty of 20% but are exempt from the levy fixed by the common market organization.

3. According to the Italian Government, the requirement of a fair allocation means that it is necessary to ensure a correlation between the needs of each Member State and the allocation by the Commission of a quota share intended to meet those needs. Any change in that relationship could lead to discrimination. In support of its analysis the Italian Government put forward three arguments.

4. In contrast to the view of the Italian Government, the accused in the main proceedings, the Belgian Government and the Commission interpret Regulation No 3225/82 as not prohibiting re-exportation. The following are, in essence, the arguments put forward in support of that contention.

5. The question which has been referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling by the Corte suprema di cassazione, as illuminated by the grounds set out in the order making that reference, seeks to determine whether the share of the Community tariff quota allocated to each Member State is intended, in so far as it is calculated so as to be proportionate to the requirements of the Member States (second recital in the preamble to Regulation No 3225/82), to satisfy the needs of the domestic market, thereby excluding any re-exportation of the imported meat to another Member State. It is therefore necessary to examine whether Regulation No 3225/82 itself prohibits re-exportation either expressly or by implication.

6. That conclusion is not contradicted by the reference to the requirements of the Member States, on the basis of which their quota shares are calculated. The second recital in the preamble to the regulation provides that:

7. At the hearing that last point was no longer disputed by the Italian Government.

8. It is necessary, however, to make one final point. Free access to the quota share of each Member State is limited to persons concerned. The Court has stated that:

9. Consequently, I propose that the following reply should be given to the question referred to the Court by the Corte suprema di cassazione:

1 Translated from the French.