The Gazette 1975

restriciions. Most of the eases arose early in tin- period of operation of the Trca'y. It may thcrefoiv be that after 1978 there will he a similar number of cases allccling the new members. Of the more re- cent cases the Salgoil Cases heard before the European Court as Case 13/1968 end before the Court of Appeal in Rome as Salgoil v The Ministry for Foreign Trade decided thr.t articles 31 and 32 were directly effective and could be relied on by individuals before their National Courts and that the Legal nature of a Com- munity rule could not be altered by the particular features of the National Law of a Member State. The I'.alian Foreign Trade Ministry had argued that the Rome Court of Appeal could not ask the Court to as- certain the extent of judicial protection recorded to private individuals under the treaty because this was a question of interpretation of Italian Internal Law. The European Court has on three occasions had to consider the effcet of an Italian Law of 1939 which im- posed a tax on he export of objects of artistic, his- torical, archaeological or ethnographic interest. The first case, The Commission v Italy, Export Tax on Art Treasures No. 7/68 (1969) C.M.L.R. 1, the Court held that the provisions of Articlc 36 of the Treaty which permitted prohibitions or restrictions on the ex- port of goods justified on the grounds of the protection of National Treasures did no' justify the charging of an export tax. In the second case, Di Porro v The Italian Minister for Education, Case 18/1971 (1972) C.M.L.R. 4, The Court held on a reference from a Turin Court that Article 16 of 'he Treaty which required the abolition of Customs Duies on exports between Member States was then immediately applicable and conferred a subjective right on a citizen against the Italian S'ate which the Italian State should enforce. The third case, Export Tax and Art Treasures No. 2, The Commission v Italy, Case 48/1971 (1972) C.M.L.R. 699, the Court held on an application from the Com- mission t h ft Paly had infringed Article 171 of the Treaty by failing to comply with a judgment of the Court. On the other hand a German Court has held in a case called "The Special Turnover Tax Case" (1973) C.M.L.R. 687, that this special tax imposed on all exports and intended not to be a revenue measure but c. means of economic control is a violation of Art- icle 12 of the Treaty in so far as it applies to exports to other Member States but is not prohibited by the Treaty as regards exports to non Member Sta'es. The area of agriculture is of course one of the most important in the Community and one in which the most complex measures have been introduced by the Community in i\n attempt to Tegulate the agricultural market in accordance with the terms of the Treaty. There is a vast amount of legislation in the agricultural ?rea and it is far from surprising that a great many cases have arisen. The Community has adop'ed a num- ber of different measures aimed at implementing the 84 Restriction on Export Taxes Agriculture

such discrimination exists is predicted. In practice the latter articles of the Treaty prescribe in detail how- discrimination is to i:e avoided. !\ T o eases linvc in fact been brought under this ar icle alone. It must therefore he doubtful whether his article can be used in the absence of any more detailed provision in the Treat)- as a basis for an action.

Free Movement of Goods — Abolition of Customs Duties

in the original six Members of the Community, Customs Duties between the rcspcc'ivc members have been abolished, and while the position with regard to the three new members is that there is a progressive reduction of these duties 'aking place over the period of the transition period, complete abolition will not 'ake place until 1978. Accordingly the cases wInch I mention now are not of immediate direct applicability but they arc examples of the operation of 'he system. In three c a s e s -Ca se 24/1968. The Commission v The Italian Republic, case 8/70, again The Commission v The Italian Republic, and Case 34/73, The Variola Case, the Court of Justice has held successively that statistical duties, administrative duties and disembark- ation charges which arc imposed on goods which have been the subject of some customs chocking at the point of entry to 'he particular country arc void because ttiey are considered to be customs duties under another guise. A similar decision was reached in the Rove Case, Case No. 39/1973 where I-Iygicnc Control Tax imposed by the Chamber of Agricul urc in a German province was held to be a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty. A common Customs Tariff hrs been established w ith- in the Community and the cases arising on this have largely been of a technical na ure. The points at issue normally have been whether the goods in question fall into one or other category in the classification, which is known as the Brussels Nomenclature. The Bakels Case No. 14/1970, dealt with a baking emulsifier called Voltcm. The ques'ion at issue was whether the product should be regarded as a chemical or as a food preparation. The importance of :he decision is not so much which category the product fell into but the holding by the Court that explanatory notes and tar- iff notices prescribed in the Brussels Nomenclature arc to be regarded as an authoritative source of informa- tion for interpreting the tariff headings under the ap- propriate E.E.C. Regulations No. 950/1968, and that Member States arc not permitted to make provisions affecting the scopc of that regulaffon. Those of us|who ever defended prosecutions for inadequate milk fat content In Milk will be interes'edto note that milk fait has in fact reached the Court of Justice, in Case 49/73, The Fleischer Case, where the Court had to decide whether a product which had too high a milk fat con- tent could be classified as bulk caramel.

Elimination of Quantitative Restrictions

Articles 30 and 31 of the Treaty provide for the prohibition of quantita'ivc restrictions on imports and a restriction on the introduction of new quantitative