Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (202/82)

1. The method of analysis to he applied to imported pasta products

The Italian Government considers that it cannot be concluded from the Court's case-law that, in verifying compliance with the substantive rules in force in the exporting country, the importing country must employ the exporting country's methods of analysis.The Court did not consider that question in its decision in the “Cassis de Dijon case. On the contrary, in its judgments of 30 September 1975 (Joined Cases 89/74, 18 and 19/75, Arnaud, [1975] ECR 1023; Joined Cases 10 to 14/75, Lahaille [1975] ECR 1053), the Court by implication accepted the principle that, in the absence of a common method of analysis, the importing country could legitimately apply its own method of analysis.Furthermore, the solution proposed by the Commission would in reality entail impractical and absurd consequences. The experts responsible for carrying out the verifications in a Member State would be obliged to learn the methods of analysis of all the other Member States and the State would be obliged to acquire all the additional scientific instruments and to provide the necessary training.The Italian Government points out that the methods of analysis are only one of a number of means used to establish the existence of fraud, and that a criminal court can make use of other means of investigation to form its own opinion.It should be emphasized that it is not technically possible to obtain perfect results with such methods of analysis. The reliability of a method must be considered in the light of the result which is sought to be achieved. The French and Italian methods are more than adequate to ensure that an analysis of pasta products manufactured exclusively from durum wheatmeal does not indicate that it contains common wheat. This is confirmed by the results of the UNAFPA studies carried out in 1978 and 1980. A minimal difference between the results does not undermine the reliability of the two methods, if account is taken of the errors which analysts without special training will have made in carrying out the tests or in reading the results thereof.As regard the criticisms made by the Commission in its reply, the Italian Government refers to a report, annexed to its observations, prepared by the Institute of Agricultural Industries, attached to the Faculty of Agriculture of the University of Milan.Furthermore, the Italian Government denies that pasta products cooked at high temperature and pre-cooked pasta products play any role in trade between the two countries, which consists of ordinary dried pasta products.It adds that exports to France represent 50% of Italian exports of pasta products to the EEC and that French production does not cover the needs of its own domestic market.