Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) >> Criminal proceedings against P. Maniglier. [1986] EUECJ R-320/85 (8 October 1986)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1986/R32085.html
Cite as: [1986] EUECJ R-320/85

[New search] [Help]

IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The source of this judgment is the web site of the Court of Justice of the European Communities. The information in this database has been provided free of charge and is subject to a Court of Justice of the European Communities disclaimer and a copyright notice. This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment.

61985J0320
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 October 1986.
Criminal proceedings against P. Maniglier.
Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal de police de Chaumont - France.
Common organization of the market: fruit and vegetables not subject to quality standards.
Case 320/85.
European Court reports 1986 Page 02917

AGRICULTURE - COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKETS - FRUIT AND VEGETABLES - QUALITY STANDARDS - SCOPE - DELIVERY OR MARKETING OF PRODUCTS - CONCEPT
( REGULATION NO 1035/72 OF THE COUNCIL , ART . 3 ( 1 ), ( 2 ) AND ( 3 ))

THE PURCHASE OF FRUIT BY A TRADER DIRECT FROM PRODUCERS AND THE TRANSPORTATION OF SUCH FRUIT TO THE TRADER ' S PREMISES LOCATED OUTSIDE THE AREA OF PRODUCTION BUT WITHIN THE SAME MEMBER STATE CONSTITUTE ACTS OF DELIVERY OR MARKETING REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OBLIGATION TO OBSERVE THE COMMON QUALITY STANDARDS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 3 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 1035/72 OF THE COUNCIL OF 18 MAY 1972 , UNLESS THOSE OPERATIONS FALL WITHIN ANY OF THE SITUATIONS PROVIDED FOR IN PARAGRAPHS ( 2 ) AND ( 3 ) OF THAT ARTICLE .

IN CASE 320/85
REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE TRIBUNAL DE POLICE ( LOCAL CRIMINAL COURT ), CHAUMONT , FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT BETWEEN
MINISTERE PUBLIC ( PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ' S OFFICE )
AND
P . MANIGLIER

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 3 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 1035/72 OF THE COUNCIL OF 18 MAY 1972 ON THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN FRUIT AND VEGETABLES ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1972 ( II ), P . 437 ),

1 BY JUDGMENT DATED 23 OCTOBER 1985 , WHICH WAS RECEIVED AT THE COURT ON 28 OCTOBER 1985 , THE ( LOCAL CRIMINAL COURT ), CHAUMONT , REFERRED TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY A QUESTION AS TO THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF REGULATION NO 1035/72 OF THE COUNCIL OF 18 MAY 1972 ON THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN FRUIT AND VEGETABLES ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1972 ( II ), P . 437 ).

2 THE QUESTION WAS RAISED IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST A FRUIT AND VEGETABLE TRADER , MR MANIGLIER , WHO IS ACCUSED OF MARKETING ARTICHOKES AND CAULIFLOWERS OF LOW QUALITY AND TRANSPORTING PACKAGES OF NON-STANDARDIZED FRUIT OUTSIDE THE AREA OF PRODUCTION .

3 IT APPEARS FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE NATIONAL COURT THAT THE ACCUSED IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THAT COURT WENT IN HIS LORRY TO OBTAIN SUPPLIES DIRECT FROM FRUIT GROWERS IN THE SOUTH OF FRANCE . HE BOUGHT PACKAGES CONTAINING VARIOUS KINDS OF FRUIT AND HIMSELF TRANSPORTED THEM FROM THE AREA OF PRODUCTION TO HIS PREMISES IN CHAUMONT , OUTSIDE THAT AREA . THE FRUIT WAS BEING UNLOADED WHEN THE POLICE NOTED THAT IT WAS NOT LABELLED AND TOOK THE VIEW THAT IT WAS BEING MARKETED WITHOUT CONFORMING TO THE APPLICABLE QUALITY STANDARDS .

4 THE NATIONAL COURT WAS UNCERTAIN WHETHER , IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES , THE FRUIT WAS ACTUALLY BEING ' MARKETED ' WITHIN THE MEANING OF REGULATION NO 1035/72 , THE BASIC REGULATION GOVERNING FRUIT AND VEGETABLES . ACCORDINGLY , THE NATIONAL COURT ASKED THE COURT OF JUSTICE TO GIVE A PRELIMINARY RULING ON THE QUESTION ' WHETHER THE NATIONAL COURT IS ENTITLED TO REGARD THE TRANSPORTATION BY THE TRADER HIMSELF OF GOODS PURCHASED DIRECT FROM THE PRODUCERS AS A DELIVERY OR AN ACT OF MARKETING . '
5 IT SHOULD BE NOTED IN THE FIRST PLACE THAT THE APPLICATION OF QUALITY COMMON STANDARDS IS AN ESSENTIAL FEATURE OF THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN FRUIT AND VEGETABLES , AS PROVIDED FOR IN REGULATION NO 1035/72 . ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 2 OF THAT REGULATION , THE QUALITY STANDARDS MAY BE ESTABLISHED BY PRODUCT OR GROUP OF PRODUCTS FOR PRODUCTS TO BE DELIVERED FRESH TO THE CONSUMER AND ALSO FOR PRODUCTS INTENDED FOR INDUSTRIAL PROCESSING . COMMUNITY PROCEDURES ARE LAID DOWN FOR FIXING THE QUALITY STANDARDS AND FOR DECIDING TO WHICH PRODUCTS QUALITY STANDARDS ARE TO BE APPLIED .

6 BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 3 ( 1 ) OF THE REGULATION , WHEN QUALITY STANDARDS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED , THE PRODUCTS TO WHICH THEY APPLY MAY NOT BE ' DISPLAYED OR OFFERED FOR SALE , SOLD , DELIVERED OR MARKETED IN ANY OTHER MANNER ' WITHIN THE COMMUNITY UNLESS THEY CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS .

7 IN INTERPRETING THAT GENERAL RULE , IT MUST FIRST BE NOTED THAT THE RECITALS IN THE PREAMBLE TO THE REGULATION MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE STANDARDIZATION PROVIDED FOR THEREIN CANNOT BE FULLY EFFECTIVE UNLESS APPLIED ' AT ALL STAGES OF MARKETING ' BUT THAT EXCEPTIONS MAY BE MADE ' FOR CERTAIN ACTIVITIES AT THE START OF THE DISTRIBUTION PROCESS ' , AND FOR PRODUCTS SENT FOR PROCESSING ( FIFTH RECITAL ).

8 THOSE EXCEPTIONS ARE DEFINED IN ARTICLE 3 ( 2 ) AND ( 3 ) OF THE REGULATION . THEY REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT OF CONFORMING TO THE QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE CASE OF PRODUCTS WITHIN A MEMBER STATE , WHICH ARE :
( A ) SOLD , DELIVERED OR CONSIGNED BY THE GROWER FROM HIS HOLDING OR MARKET PREPARATION AND PACKING OR STORAGE ( ARTICLE 3 ( 2 ) ( A ));

( B ) CONSIGNED FROM STORAGE FOR MARKET PREPARATION AND PACKAGING ( ARTICLE 3 ( 2 ) ( B ));

( C ) CONSIGNED TO PROCESSING PLANTS , SUBJECT TO POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF QUALITY STANDARDS FOR PRODUCTS INTENDED FOR INDUSTRIAL PROCESSING ( ARTICLE 3 ( 3 ) ( A ));

( D ) TRANSFERRED BY THE PRODUCER ON HIS HOLDING TO CONSUMERS FOR THEIR PERSONAL USE ( ARTICLE 3 ( 3 ) ( B )).

9 IT IS THEREFORE APPARENT FROM BOTH THE WORDING AND THE PURPOSE OF ARTICLE 3 THAT THE TERMS USED IN THE GENERAL RULE LAID DOWN IN PARAGRAPH ( 1 ), CONCERNING THE SALE , DELIVERY OR MARKETING OF PRODUCTS MUST HAVE A BROAD MEANING , SO AS TO INCLUDE OPERATIONS TAKING PLACE AT THE VERY START OF THE DISTRIBUTION PROCESS . THAT INTERPRETATION IS CONFIRMED BY ARTICLE 8 OF THE REGULATION , WHICH DEALS WITH CHECKS TO ESTABLISH WHETHER PRODUCTS CONFORM TO THE QUALITY STANDARDS AND PROVIDES IN PARTICULAR FOR A CHECK BY SAMPLING ' AT ALL MARKETING STAGES AND DURING TRANSPORT ' ; THE CHECK SHOULD , IF POSSIBLE , BE MADE PRIOR TO DESPATCH FROM THE PRODUCTION AREAS WHEN THE GOOD ARE BEING PACKED OR LOADED .

10 ACCORDINGLY , IT MUST BE CONSIDERED THAT A TRADER WHO BUYS FRUIT DIRECT FROM GROWERS AND TRANSPORTS IT TO HIS PREMISES OUTSIDE THE AREA OF PRODUCTION AND UNLOADS THEM THERE IS CARRYING OUT OPERATIONS WHICH FALL WITHIN THE CONCEPT OF MARKETING , WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 3 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 1035/72 . SUCH A TRADER IS THEREFORE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH QUALITY STANDARDS , UNLESS ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED FOR IN THE REGULATION APPLIES .

11 IN THAT CONNECTION , MR MANIGLIER MAINTAINED IN HIS WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS THAT HE TRANSPORTED THE FRUIT FROM THE AREA OF PRODUCTION TO HIS STORAGE PREMISES AND THAT THE LATTER SHOULD BE REGARDED AS A PACKING STATION WHERE THE OPERATIONS OF MEASUREMENT , LABELLING AND STANDARDIZATION WERE TO BE CARRIED OUT BEFORE THE FRUIT WAS OFFERED FOR SALE . HOWEVER , ACCORDING TO THE PROCEDURE UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE TREATY , IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY NOT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE BUT OF THE NATIONAL COURT TO MAKE THE FINDINGS OF FACT NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER , IN THIS CASE , THE CONDITIONS NECESSARY FOR THE APPLICATION OF ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 3 ( 2 ) AND ( 3 ) OF REGULATION NO 1035/72 ARE SATISFIED .

12 IT MUST THEREFORE BE STATED IN REPLY TO THE QUESTION SUBMITTED THAT THE PURCHASE OF FRUIT BY A TRADER DIRECT FROM PRODUCERS AND THE TRANSPORTATION OF SUCH FRUIT TO THE TRADER ' S PREMISES LOCATED OUTSIDE THE AREA OF PRODUCTION BUT WITHIN THE SAME MEMBER STATE CONSTITUTED ACTS OF DELIVERY OR MARKETING REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OBLIGATION TO OBSERVE THE COMMON QUALITY STANDARDS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 3 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 1035/72 OF THE COUNCIL , UNLESS THOSE OPERATIONS FALL WITHIN ANY OF THE SITUATIONS PROVIDED FOR IN PARAGRAPHS ( 2 ) AND ( 3 ) OF THAT ARTICLE .

COSTS
13 THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , WHICH HAS SUBMITTED OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT , ARE NOT RECOVERABLE . AS THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE , IN SO FAR AS THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCERNED , IN THE NATURE OF A STEP IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURT , THE DECISION ON COSTS IS A MATTER FOR THAT COURT .

ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE COURT ( FOURTH CHAMBER ),
IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION REFERRED TO IT BY THE , CHAUMONT , BY JUDGMENT OF 23 OCTOBER 1985 , HEREBY RULES :
THE PURCHASE OF FRUIT BY A TRADER DIRECT FROM PRODUCERS AND THE TRANSPORTATION OF SUCH FRUIT TO THE TRADER ' S PREMISES LOCATED OUTSIDE THE AREA OF PRODUCTION BUT WITHIN THE SAME MEMBER STATE CONSTITUTED ACTS OF DELIVERY OR MARKETING REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OBLIGATION TO OBSERVE THE COMMON QUALITY STANDARDS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 3 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 1035/72 OF THE COUNCIL OF 18 MAY 1972 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1972 ( II ), P . 437 ), UNLESS THOSE OPERATIONS FALL WITHIN ANY OF THE SITUATIONS PROVIDED FOR IN PARAGRAPHS ( 2 ) AND ( 3 ) OF THAT ARTICLE .