Opinion of Advocate General

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. Two French companies which produce animal feed on the basis inter alia of cereals and which also to a certain extent trade in cereals have brought proceedings before the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Pau against the French tax authorities for the repayment of a parafiscal charge paid by them over the period from 1 July 1986 to 31 May 1988. The companies have claimed that that charge is incompatible with Community law.

2. The Court is thus already acquainted with the charge and I may therefore merely summarize the main characteristics of the charge as follows:

3. In this case the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Pau has referred three questions to the Court of Justice.

4. I can thus largely confine my observations to reference to:

The significance of the Community rules on agriculture for the French charge

5. This question can clearly be answered in the same way as the question in Morvan.

The EEC Treaty han on charges having an equivalent effect to customs duties and on discriminatory internal charges

6. I can essentially refer to the Opinion of Advocate General Mischo. He suggested that the Court should answer the national court's question regarding that prohibition as follows:

7. The plaintiffs in the main proceedings have further claimed that the refund of the charge that is made on the export of, in any event, certain derived products is incompatible with the provision in Article 96 of the Treaty that when products are exported to the territory of a Member State, any repayment of internal taxation must not exceed the internal taxation imposed on them whether direcdy or indirectly. In support of that view the plaintiffs in the main proceedings have contended inter alia that the refund on exports is greater than the charge that is levied on the importation of corresponding products. It is plain that that argument is not directly relevant to the application of the prohibition under Article 96 which relates to the refund on exports of internal charges in excess of the amount that whether directly or indirectly was imposed on the exported products. The argument may, however, perhaps be used as indirect support for the view that the refund of the charge on exports is incompatible with Article 96. It is for the national court to determine whether the facts of the case are such as to constitute an infringement of Article 96.

The significance for the French charge of the rules in the Treaty on State aid

8. The national court raises the question to what extent the charge must be regarded as unlawful State aid under Article 92 of the Treaty having regard to the use to which the revenue is put and the rules on refunds.

Conclusion

9. On the basis of the foregoing I would suggest that the Court give the following answer to the questions referred to it by the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Pau:

1 Original language: Danish.

2 Sec for example Case C-354/90 FNLE v French State [1991] ECR I-5505.