英语论文网

ncessionaires established in other Member States.Price differences found to exist between Member States are an indication to be taken into account.
ISSUE 1
In case 8/74
Reference to the court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the tribunal de premiere instance ofBrussels for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before that court betweenProcureur du roi (public prosecutor)
AndBenoit and gustave dassonville
And in the civil action betweenSa ets. Fourcroy
Sa breuval et cie
AndBenoit and gustave dassonville
ISSUE 2
On the interpretation of Articles 30 to 33, 36 and 85 of the EEC Treaty,
GROUNDS
1 by judgment of 11 January 1974, received at the registry of the court on 8 February 1974, thetribunal de premiere instance of Brussels referred, under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty, two questionson the interpretation of Articles 30, 31, 32, 33, 36 and 85 of the EEC Treaty, relating to the
requirement of an official document issued by the government of the exporting country for products
bearing a designation of origin.
2 By the first question it is asked whether a national provision prohibiting the import of goods bearing
a designation of origin where such goods are not accompanied by an official document issued by the
government of the exporting country certifying their right to such designation constitutes a measurehaving an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction within the meaning of Article 30 of the Treaty.
3 This question was raised within the context of criminal proceedings instituted in Belgium againsttraders who duly acquired a consignment of scotch whisky in free circulation in France and imported it
into Belgium without being in possession of a certificate of origin from the british customs authorities,thereby infringing belgian rules.
4 It emerges from the file and from the oral proceedings that a trader, wishing to import into Belgiumscotch whisky which is already in free circulation in France, can obtain such a certificate only with
great difficulty, unlike the importer who imports directly from the producer country.
5 All trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly,actually or potentially, intra-Community trade are to be considered as measures having an effect
equivalent to quantitative restrictions.
6 In the absence of a Community system guaranteeing for consumers the authenticity of a product'sdesignation of origin, if a Member State takes measures to prevent unfair practices in this connexion,
it is however subject to the chttp://www.51lunwen.org/business/ondition that these measures should be reasonable and that the meansof proof required should not act as a hindrance to trade between Member States and should, inconsequence, be accessible to all Community nationals.
7 Even without having to examine whether or not such measures arecovered by Article 36, they must
Page2
not, in any case, by virtue of the principle expressed in the second sentence of that Article, constitutea means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States.
8 That may be the case with formalities, required by a Member State for the purpose of proving theorigin of a product, which only direct importers are really in a position to satisfy without facing serious
difficulties.
9 Consequently, the requirement by a Member State of a certificate of authenticity which is less easilyobtai