Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mancini

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. The subject of this Opinion is an action brought under Article 169 of the EEC Treaty by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic. The charge made against that State is that by limiting the importation of fresh beef and veal to certain cuts it infringes Article 22 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in beef and veal (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 187), which reaffirms as regards the common organization of the market in beef and veal the principle of the free movement of goods referred to in Article 30 et seq. of the Treaty.

2. As I have already said, the Commission considers that the provisions in question (Article 1 (4) of Order No 56/83 of the Commercial Police and Ministerial Decrees Nos E6/1264 and E6/1478) are likely to restrict intra-Community trade in beef and veal directly or indirectly, now or in the future, and hence constitute measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions, which are prohibited by Article 22 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68; that provision reaffirms the principle laid down by Article 30 of the Treaty, on the basis of which traders are free to choose the form of cuts of meat which they import or export within the Community.

3. The Greek Government's arguments, both in the pre-litigation stage (reply to the reasoned opinion) and in the proceedings before the Court, with respect to the charges summarized above, are as follows: (a) the contested provisions do not impede trade in beef and veal; (b) they do not affect imports; (c) they are justified in any event by the difficulties experienced by the Greek authorities in monitoring price trends on foreign markets for the various cuts of meat; and (d) they are justified by the need to combat currency fraud in connection with the relevant transactions.

4. I shall say straight out that none of those arguments convinces me. I shall start first of all with the argument under (a). Backed by statistics, the Greek Government contends that the provisions at issue have even brought about an increase in imports; but that is not sufficient to cause them not to be measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions. In order for a measure to be described as such it is sufficient, in fact, that it may potentially impede trade between Member States; and it is obvious that that is so in this case. Anyone can appreciate that if cuts other than those authorized could be imported, trade would be simpler and the volume of imports would be likely to increase.

5. Let us now turn to the last two arguments, which the Greek Government regards as its strongest cards. It contends essentially that the provisions at issue have a dual aim: that of monitoring prices and avoiding currency fraud. Consequently, it maintains that they are justified on the basis of Article 36 of the Treaty.

6. In the light of all of the foregoing I propose that the Court should uphold the action brought by the Commission of the European Communities on 30 April 1985 against the Hellenic Republic and declare that, in allowing only certain cuts of beef and veal to be imported, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 22 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in beef and veal and under Article 30 et seq. of the EEC Treaty.

1 Translated from the Iulian.