Judgment_paragraph 3. · F. van Luipen en Zn BV against a disciplinary measure adopted against it (29/82)

3.The Commission stresses first of all that van Luipen is a member of the Bureau and the fine was imposed for an infringement of the quality standards. Whichever answer is given to the question submitted that penalty cannot be affected.The Commission concurs however with the decisions of the Court in which it has been held that it is for the national court to assess, having regard to the facts of the case, the need to obtain a preliminary ruling to enable it to give its own judgment.As to the substance of the case, the Commission considers that the case-law arising out of the Vriend case must be applied. In both cases the products concerned belong to a common organization of the market which is based on the freedom of commercial transactions and opposed to any national rules capable of impeding, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade and in applying Community rules Member States may not unilaterally adopt additional measures which are likely to compromise the equal treatment of traders.The fact that the regulation in question does not reenact the prohibition of quantitative restrictions or measures having equivalent effect does not detract from the validity of the foregoing argument because Articles 30 to 34 are an integral part of the common organization of the market (judgment of the Court of 29 November 1978 in Case 83/78 Pigs Marketing Board [1978] ECR 2347).The Commission also considers it immaterial that the rules of the Bureau do not, as in the Vriend case, make provision for the suspension of a member and that exemptions may be granted under the Netherlands rules because once a measure having equivalent effect is prohibited it does not escape that prohibition even if the competent national authority has the power to grant exemptions (judgments of 24 January 1978 in Case 82/77 Van Tiggele [1978] ECR 25, of 16 December 1980, in Case 27/80 Fie tje [1980] ECR 3839 and of 19 February 1981 in Case 130/80 Kelderman [1981] ECR 527).As to the fact that the Bureau is under a duty to accept as a member any person applying for membership, that was also the case in Vriend.The Commission also observes that the rules of the Bureau permit the membership only of those who, according to an entry in a commercial register kept in the Netherlands, are established, whether exclusively or not, in the Netherlands, which might also hinder the importation of the products in question.As to the fact that the supervision exercised by the Bureau consists exclusively in checking that the provisions of Community law are complied with, the Commission does not discern any substantial difference from the Vriend case and stresses that the Bureau also has as its object to assist in raising the standard of quality of fruit and vegetables produced in the Netherlands and in particular to help to improve the quality of those products by carrying out inspections and supervising compliance with the relevant provisions in force. As a further object the rules provide that the Bureau is “to pursue activities in addition to those referred to [above] ... with a view to promoting trade in fruit and vegetables in accordance with guidelines laid down for members by the Board”.