2.The Commission refers to the facts and the procedure and emphasizes that, while the procedure is taking place, its departments are preparing a file which will enable them, if necessary, to bring proceedings against the French Republic to establish a failure to take action in relation to the provisions concerning the export of lever escapement watches and watch movements. The Commission sets out the content and the scope of the French legislation whose application is in question. It insists that the system of licences is comparable to the system of Cetehor certificates, whose aim is to guarantee quality in the French watch- and clock-making industry. It emphasizes that, in its opinion, there is no doubt that the provisions in question only apply to goods intended for export, whatever their origin and destination, and that the purpose of the rules applicable to exports of watches and watch movements is to promote the products of the French watch- and clock-making industry in external markets by means of a guarantee of quality.As regards the legal principles applicable, the Commission maintains that any national rules which make exports to other Member States dependent upon production to the customs authorities of either a licence or a standards certificate constitute a direct or indirect, actual or potential, obstacle to trade within the Community. The Commission refers to numerous cases decided by the Court of Justice and, in particular, to the judgment of 15 December 1971 in the International Fruit Company case (Joined Cases 51 to 54/71 [1971] ECR 1107), which precludes the application of any national legislation which requires, even as a pure formality, a procedure similar to a licence. The judgment of 20 February 1975 in Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Case 12/74 [1975] ECR 181) indicates that if a provision could constitute an obstacle to the free movement of goods that is sufficient for it to be regarded as actually doing so. The argument put forward by the French Customs in this instance that the application of the rules in dispute have brought about an improvement in quality and therefore an increase in exports of French watches does not alter the fact that the said rules constitute a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on exports. Moreover, in the light of the complications and delays inherent in the issue of the standards certificates, that argument is merely conjectural.The Commission then raises the question whether the requirement of a licence or a standards certificate falls within the area of sovereignty retained by the Member States. It maintains that, in considering that question, the two elements of the choice (the obligation to obtain a licence or a Cetehor certificate) cannot be separated. In fact, the quality inspection inherent in the issue of one or the other of those documents enables the reputation of the national products to be enhanced. However, the Commission maintains that such a requirement is incompatible with Community law.In fact, there is discrimination between the products intended for export and those intended for the internal market and as a result the reputation for high quality does not apply to all the goods produced in the Member States in question:— An ordinary optional guarantee label would enable the quality of certain products to be indicated without adversely affecting the free movement of all the comparable products;— However, the fixing of new quality standards may enable patterns of trade to be diverted away from certain categories of products and into other channels, which may be prejudicial to both the concept of free movement, and to conditions of competition (as regards the danger of deciding on arbitrary classifications, see the judgment in Case 12/74, Commission v Federal Republic of Germany [1975] ECR 181);— Even if it were accepted that, in addition to the reasons set out in Article 36, certain standards could be justified by a desire to protect foreign consumers (see Commission Directive 70/50/EEC of 22.12.1969, OJ, English Special Edition 1970 (I), p. 17), a Member State would only be entitled to apply such standards in favour of its own customers. For that reason, quality standards which are imposed only on exports to other Member States are a fortiori excluded.On the basis of the foregoing submissions the Commission suggests that the following answer be given to the question referred by the Tribunal Correctionnel, Besançon:‘Apart from the exceptions for which provision is made by Community law itself, Article 34 of the Treaty precludes the application to intra-Community trade of a national provision which requires, even as a pure formality, import or export licences or any other similar procedure.For a Member State to subject the export to other Member States of specific goods produced within its territory to the issue of a certificate showing conformity with certain quality standards, without any such certificate being required for the same goods to be marketed within the Member State where they are produced, constitutes a measure having effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on exports prohibited by Article 34 of the Treaty.Rules adopted by a Member State which subject the export to other Member States of specific goods not produced within its territory to the production of a similar standards certificate also constitute a measure having effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on exports.’
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.