1 BY AN ORDER OF 25 JUNE 1970 RECEIVED AT THE COURT ON 27 JULY 1970 THE FINANZGERICHT HAMBURG HAS REFERRED FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY A QUESTION ON THE INTERPRETATION OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 805/68 OF THE COUNCIL OF 27 JUNE 1968 AND REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 888/68 OF THE COUNCIL OF 28 JUNE 1968 AS WELL AS OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1082/68 OF THE COMMISSION OF 26 JULY 1968, CONCERNING THE INTRODUCTION AND APPLICATION OF SPECIAL IMPORT TERMS FOR CERTAIN FROZEN MEATS FOR PROCESSING .
2 THE COURT IS ASKED TO RULE WHETHER THESE REGULATIONS " LAY DOWN ALL THE FORMAL REQUIREMENTS WHICH MUST BE SATISFIED IN ORDER THAT THE TOTAL SUSPENSION OF THE IMPORT LEVY REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 14 ( 3 ) ( A ) OF REGULATION NO 805/68 MAY BE GRANTED ", OR WHETHER THE NATIONAL CUSTOMS AUTHORITY MAY " RELY ON PROVISIONS OF ITS NATIONAL LAW IN ORDER TO MAKE THE GRANT OF THE BENEFIT OF THE PREFERENTIAL LEVY SYSTEM CONDITIONAL UPON ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ".
THE COURT IS ASKED IN PARTICULAR TO RULE WHETHER A NATIONAL CUSTOMS AUTHORITY IS ENTITLED TO REQUIRE THE IMPORTER CONCERNED TO BE " TRUSTWORTHY " IN THE DISCRETIONARY JUDGMENT OF THAT AUTHORITY, AS LAID DOWN IN THE SECOND SENTENCE OF PARAGRAPH 55 ( 2 ) OF THE GERMAN CUSTOMS LAW OF 1961 .
3 IN ORDER THAT THE COMMUNITY PROCESSING INDUSTRIES MAY OBTAIN ADEQUATE SUPPLIES, COMMUNITY RULES PROVIDE FOR THE SUSPENSION OF THE IMPORT LEVY ON CERTAIN MEATS INTENDED FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF PRESERVED MEAT .
ARTICLE 1 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 888/68 MAKES THE TOTAL SUSPENSION OF THE LEVY CONDITIONAL UPON :
( A ) A WRITTEN DECLARATION BEING MADE BY THE IMPORTER AT THE TIME OF IMPORTATION THAT THE FROZEN MEAT IS INTENDED FOR USE IN THE IMPORTING MEMBER STATE FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF PRESERVED MEAT;
( B ) A DEPOSIT BEING LODGED BY THE IMPORTER, IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE LEVY, GUARANTEEING SUCH MANUFACTURE;
( C ) A WRITTEN UNDERTAKING BEING GIVEN BY THE IMPORTER, AT THE TIME OF IMPORTATION, TO PAY THE ADDITIONAL SUM SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPH ( 5 ) IF THE PROOF SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPH ( 3 ) IS NOT FURNISHED IN RESPECT OF THE WHOLE QUANTITY OF FROZEN MEAT IMPORTED .
IN ADDITION, UNDER PARAGRAPHS ( 3 ) AND ( 4 ) OF THAT ARTICLE THE DEPOSIT IS NOT TO BE RETURNED UNLESS THE IMPORTER FURNISHES THE PROOF REQUIRED WITHIN SIX MONTHS .
FURTHERMORE, IN REGULATION NO 1082/68 THE COMMISSION FIXED THE COEFFICIENTS DETERMINING THE QUANTITY OF PRESERVED MEAT WHICH MUST ARISE FROM THE PROCESSING OF IMPORTED FROZEN MEATS .
THE QUESTION PUT IS THEREFORE INTENDED TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER, IN THE FACE OF THESE DETAILED PROVISIONS, THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES MAY SUBJECT THE APPLICATION OF THESE RULES TO ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THEIR CUSTOMS LEGISLATION .
4 WHERE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING A COMMUNITY REGULATION IT MUST BE RECOGNIZED THAT IN PRINCIPLE THIS IMPLEMENTATION TAKES PLACE WITH DUE RESPECT FOR THE FORMS AND PROCEDURES OF NATIONAL LAW .
HOWEVER, THE UNIFORM APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY PROVISIONS ALLOWS NO RECOURSE TO NATIONAL RULES EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE REGULATIONS .
NO SUCH NEED HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE, AS THE RULES AN INTERPRETATION OF WHICH HAS BEEN REQUESTED LAY DOWN ALL THE CONDITIONS WHICH MUST BE FULFILLED FOR THE LEVY TO BE SUSPENDED, AS WELL AS ARRANGEMENTS FOR SECURITY AND THE SUPERVISION DESIGNED TO PREVENT FRAUD .
5 ALTHOUGH THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES ARE FREE TO USE ALL THE APPROPRIATE METHODS WHICH THEIR LAW PROVIDES TO PREVENT THE FRAUDULENT EVASION OF COMMUNITY RULES, THIS CANNOT APPLY WHERE THE NATIONAL LAW IS BASED UPON CRITERIA WHICH DO NOT CONFORM TO THE SYSTEM OF GUARANTEES AND PROOF INTRODUCED BY THE COMMUNITY RULES .
IN PARTICULAR, SUCH NATIONAL RULES MUST BE REGARDED AS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE COMMUNITY RULES WHEN THE NATIONAL RULES ARE BASED UPON A CRITERION WHICH LEAVES THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES TOO WIDE AN AREA OF DISCRETION, SUCH AS THE DEGREE OF TRUST TO BE ACCORDED TO AN IMPORTER .
THE APPLICATION OF CRITERIA OF THIS NATURE MAY LEAD TO DIFFERENCES OF TREATMENT BETWEEN THE IMPORTERS OF THE VARIOUS MEMBER STATES AND THUS ENDANGER THE ESSENTIAL UNIFORMITY OF APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY PROVISIONS THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE OF THE COMMON MARKET .
IT IS, THEREFORE, IMPOSSIBLE TO APPLY NATIONAL PROVISIONS BASED UPON CRITERIA WHICH ARE NOT IN HARMONY WITH THOSE ADOPTED BY THE COMMUNITY LEGISLATURE .
6 FOR THIS REASON IT WOULD BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH COMMUNITY RULES FOR ANY CUSTOMS AUTHORITY TO SUBJECT AN IMPORTER' S CLAIM FOR SUSPENSION OF THE LEVY TO INTERNAL LEGAL REQUIREMENTS BASED UPON SUBJECTIVE ASSESSMENTS .
7 THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, WHICH HAVE SUBMITTED OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT, ARE NOT RECOVERABLE AND AS THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE, IN SO FAR AS THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN ACTION ARE CONCERNED, IN THE NATURE OF A STEP IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THE FINANZGERICHT HAMBURG, THE DECISION AS TO COSTS IS A MATTER FOR THAT COURT .
THE COURT
IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO IT BY THE FINANZGERICHT HAMBURG, BY ORDER OF THAT COURT OF 25 JUNE 1970, HEREBY RULES :
1 . IN THE APPLICATION OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NOS 805/68 AND 888/68 OF THE COUNCIL AND 1082/68 OF THE COMMISSION, NATIONAL AUTHORITIES MAY NOT SUBJECT IMPORTERS TO WHOM THE SPECIAL SYSTEM ESTABLISHED BY THOSE REGULATIONS APPLIES TO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ARISING UNDER NATIONAL LAW WHICH ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE CRITERIA ON WHICH THE COMMUNITY REGULATIONS ARE BASED;
2 . A CONDITION MAKING THE APPLICABILITY OF SUCH SPECIAL SYSTEM DEPENDENT UPON A SUBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT ON THE PART OF THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SYSTEM LAID DOWN BY THE COMMUNITY RULES .
