Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mischo

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

The tribunal de première instance [Court of First Instance], Dinant, has referred the following question to the Court in criminal proceedings brought before that court by the ministère public against a trader in butter, Arthur Mathot:

Thus formulated, the question put to the Court is in effect whether a provision of national law is compatible with Community law.

However, in the context of a reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty, the Court only has jurisdiction to interpret the Treaty or to give a ruling on the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions of the Community.

It is however possible to reformulate the question in such a way as to bring it within the scope of Article 177. That could be done as follows:

Since the Court has already expressed its view on problems of this type on several occasions, including one quite recently, I can restrict myself to three brief observations which I can make immediately.

1. Article 30 is not infringed by a national measure which has no restrictive effect on imports.

2. No other provision of the Treaty or any general principle of Community law is infringed if domestically produced products are treated less favourably than imported products (reverse discrimination) if the measures in question apply to a sector which is not governed by Community rules or subject to harmonization of national legislation.

3. In the third place, I would like to mention, for what it's worth, that a problem of reverse discrimination can no longer arise in regard to the labelling of butter because that question has been the subject of a harmonizing measure at Community level. The measure in question is Council Directive 79/112 of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I propose that the Court reply as follows to the question referred to it by the tribunal de première instance, Dinant:

1 Translated from the French.

2 Judgment of 25 January 1983 in Case 126/82 Smit v Commissie Grensoverschrijdend Beroepsgœderenvervoer [1983] ECR 92.

3 Judgment of 13 March 1979 in Case 86/78 Peureux v Services fiscaux Je la Haute-Saône et du territoire de Belfort [1979] ECR 897 at p. 915, operative part.

4 — Official Journal L 33 of 8 February 1979, p. 1.