Opinion of Advocate General

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. In these proceedings the Court has been asked to interpret Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1626/85 of 14 June 1985 on protective measures applicable to imports of certain Morello cherries.

2. It appears from the order for reference that between July and September 1985 Parma Handelsgesellschaft (Parma), the plaintiff in the main proceedings, imported from Yugoslavia several consignments of stewed Morello cherries, described in the customs declarations as fruit otherwise prepared or preserved, not containing added alcohol or sugar, own sugar content between 9% and 13%, in immediate packings of a net capacity of 1 kg or more or simply as fruit, not containing added sugar.

3. In the first of those questions, the national court asks whether Article 1(1) of Regulation No 1626/85 is to be interpreted as meaning that Morello cherries in a liquid derived from heating those cherries in water which for that reason has a sugar content greater than 9% must be classified as Morello cherries in syrup under subheadings 20.06 B II a) 8 or 20.06 B II b) 8 of the Common Customs Tariff (CCT).

4. I would start by saying that Regulation No 1626/85 does not specify what is to be understood by syrup or by Morello cherries in syrup and that it is therefore necessary to that end to consider the more general legislative context of which the regulation at issue forms a part.

5. That conclusion is supported, moreover, by the fact that, as the Commission rightly observes, a different criterion for the classification of the product in question, based not simply on sugar content but on the origin of the sugars themselves, would be difficult for the controlling customs authorities to apply.

6. In its second question, the Finanzgericht asks whether Article 1(1) of Regulation No 1626/85 is to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to calculate the minimum import price for Morello cherries in syrup, account has to be taken of the combined weight of the Morello cherries and the syrup.

7. In the light of the above considerations, I therefore propose that the Court should answer the questions put by the Finanzgericht München as follows:

1 Original language: Italian

2 OJ 1985 L 156, p. 13. See also Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1712/85 of 21 June 1985 amending the German, Greek, English, French, Italian and Dutch versions of Regulation (EEC) No 1626/85, OJ 1985 L 163, p. 46.

3 At the material time, the CCT was laid down in Council-Regulation (EEC) No 3400/84 of 27 November 1984 unending Regulation (EEC) No 950/68 on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1984 L 320, p. 1).

4 The explanatory notes to the CCT nomenclature constitute an important tool for interpretation which enables the content of the various tariff headings and subheadings to be specified and clarified (see most recently the judgment of 30 January 1992 in Case 14/91 Sucrest [1992] ECR I-441, paragraph 10).

5 OJ 1984 L 152, p. 16.

6 Judgment in Case C-384/89 Tomatis and Fulchiron [1991] ECR I-127, paragraph 11 (summary publication); judgment in Case C-228/89 Farfalla Flemming [1990] ECR I-3387, paragraph 13.

7 Judgment in Case 222/85 Kleiderwerke HeL Lampe [1986] ECR 2449, paragraph 15; judgment in Case 90/85 Mikx v Minister van Economische Zaken [1986] ECR 1695, paragraph 15.