JUDGMENT OF 20. 3. 1984 — CASE 314/82 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

In Case 314/82

THE COURT composed of: J. Mertens de Wilmars, President, T. Koopmans and Y. Galmot (Presidents of Chambers), Lord Mackenzie Stuart, A. O'Keeffe, G. Bosco and U. Everling, Judges, Advocate General: G. F. Mancini Registrar: H. A. Rühi, Principal Administrator

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts and Issues

The facts of the case, the course of the procedure and the conclusions, submissions and arguments of the parties may be summarized as follows :

I — Statement of facts

1. The Belgian Law of 15 April 1965 on inspection of and trade in fish, poultry, rabbits and game, which amended the Law of 5 September 1952 on inspection of and trade in meat (Moniteur Belge of 22 May 1965, p. 6173) lays down rules for the inspection of and trade in, inter alia, poultry intended for human consumption. Article 3 of that Law permits the King to regulate the importation, sale, distribution and slaughter of poultry. By means of the rules so laid down, the King may require an inspection or a health examination either before or after the death of the animals in question (Article 4). That Law is supplemented by the Royal Decree of 21 September 1970 on inspection of and trade in poultrymeat (Moniteur Belge of 30 October 1970, p. 10994). As regards animals slaughtered in Belgium, that decree requires a compulsory health examination before slaughter (Article 20) and also a compulsory inspection of all parts of the animal after slaughter (Article 32). By virtue of Article 46 of that decree, the importation of fresh, dried, salted or smoked poultrymeat is made subject to the production of a health certificate issued by a veterinarian officially recognized or approved in the country in which the animals have been slaughtered or in which the meat has been processed. Furthermore, by virtue of Articles 52 and 53, a health check takes place on importation covering the conditions in which the poultrymeat has been transported and in which it is presented for importation, its state of preservation and its conformity with the requirements laid down by the Belgian rules with regard to inspection of poultrymeat. As regards the cost of such inspections and examinations, Article 6 of the abovementioned Law of 15 April 1965 provides that: The inspection charges payable on importation were fixed, by Article 59 of the abovementioned decree of 21 September 1970, as amended most recently by the Royal Decree of 20 March 1978 (Moniteur Belge of 26 July 1978, p. 8518), at BFR 80 per 100 kg or part of 100 kg of poultrymeat, payable to the customs authorities. As regards animals slaughtered in Belgium, the charges made for health examinations and inspections were fixed, until 1981, by joint agreement between the trade organizations concerned. The decree of 28 August 1981 (Moniteur Belge of 1 September 1981, p. 10851), as amended by the Royal Decree of 25 September 1981 (Moniteur Belge of 23 October 1981, p. 13613) fixed the following charges to be paid by the owner of the animals in respect of the health examination carried out on poultry before slaughter and the inspection carried out after slaughter: These fees, which are payable monthly, fluctuate in line with the consumer price index.

“Charges, fixed by the King according to detailed rules to be laid down by him and intended to cover the cost of the health examination, the inspection and the health check carried out on importation may be levied on importers and owners of animals or parts of animals.”

“A. Per visit of the veterinarian for the purpose of inspection on the premises: BFR 200.

B. 1. For pigeons, quail, guinea fowl, pullets, light medium-weight boiling chickens: BFR 0.50 per animal. 2. For heavy boiling chickens, ducks and turkeys up to 7 kg live weight: BFR 1.20 per animal. 3. For heavy turkeys above 7 kg live weight, geese and swans: BFR 4 per animal.”

2. By a letter of 27 March 1981, the Commission informed the Belgian Government that the charges for inspection on importation must be regarded as taxes having an effect equivalent to customs duties and as such prohibited by Articles 9 and 12 of the EEC Treaty. It invited the Belgian Government to submit its observations on that situation. In its letter of reply dated 10 June 1981, the Belgian Government emphasized that the inspection charges were levied not on account of importation but on account of the health inspection carried out in accordance with the Council Directive of 15 February 1971 on health problems affecting trade in fresh poultrymeat (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1971 (I) p. 106). It contended that home-produced poultrymeat, with the exception of dried, smoked or salted poultrymeat in respect of which inspection charges had been abolished, was subject to the same charge. The continued existence of that charge was necessary so as to avoid distortion of competition and reserve discrimination against home-produced products since there were no uniform Community rules on meeting the cost of health inspections. On 10 February 1982, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion to the Belgian Government under Article 169 of the EEC Treaty in which it was stated that the Kingdom of Belgium had failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 9 and 12 of the Treaty by levying inspection charges on imports of poultrymeat from other Member States. It called upon the Belgian Government to comply with that opinion within two months. The Belgian Government did not reply to that reasoned opinion.

II — Procedure and conclusions

1. By application lodged at the Court Registry on 10 December 1982, the Commission brought the present action pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 169 of the Treaty. The Commission claims that the Court should: Declare that by levying inspection charges for imports of fresh, dried, salted and smoked poultrymeat from other Member States, the Kingdom of Belgium nas failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 9 and 12 of the EEC Treaty; Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

2. The Kingdom of Belgium contends that the Court should: Declare the Commission's application to be unfounded; Order the Commission to pay the costs.

3. The written procedure followed the normal course. Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur and the views of the Advocate General, the Court decided to open the oral procedure without any preparatory inquiry. However, it put to the Belgian Government a question regarding the purpose of the health checks and the means by which they are carried out, and the Government replied in writing before the hearing.

III — Submissions and arguments of the parties

The Commission, in its application, contends that in accordance with the settled case-law of the Court (judgment of 14 December 1962, Joined Cases 2 and 3/62 Commission v Luxembourg and Belgium [1962] ECR 425; judgment of 25 January 1977, Case 46/76 Bauhuis v Netherlands State [1977] ECR 5; judgment of 3 February 1981, Case 90/79 Commission v France [1981] ECR 283), pecuniary charges of the kind in question in this case are to be regarded as charges equivalent to customs duties. They are unilaterally imposed on goods by reason of the fact that they cross a frontier and are not part of a general system of internal dues because, in contrast to the position of national products, the importation and not the slaughter is the fact which gives rise to liability to the charge and because imported dried, salted or smoked poultrymeat does not enter the commercial cycle at the same point as fresh meat after slaughter and home-produced dried, salted or smoked poultrymeat is not subject to the fees in question.

The inspection charges cannot be justified as payment for a service rendered to the importer because a public health inspection carried out in the public interest cannot constitute such a service.

The Belgian Government, in its defence, relies on Council Directive 71/118 of 15 February 1971 on health problems affecting trade in fresh poultrymeat, which set up a scheme of health inspection for products coming within its field of application and providing, in Article 9 (1), that a Member State may prohibit the marketing in its territory of fresh poultrymeat coming from another Member State if at the time of that health inspection carried out in the country of destination it is found that such meat is unfit for human consumption or that certain provisions of the directive have not been complied with. Certain kinds of treated fresh poultrymeat are expressly excluded from the scope of the directive. The latter is only a first step towards the approximation of national provisions in this field. There are still no uniform Community rules on how the cost of health checks and inspections is to be covered. Thus, the Member States continue, provisionally, to have the power to regulate this matter and to provide for the charging of fees intended to finance the system of inspection laid down by the national rules.

The health checks carried out on poultrymeat at the time of importation into Belgium cover either points provided for in the Community directive, that is to say, verification of the health certificates, of the transhipment of the vehicle or the container and of the conformity of the product with the information given in the certificate, and verification of the temperature of the goods, of the physical state of the vehicle and its state of hygiene, and the markings, or matters laid down by Belgian law in accordance with the European directive, that is to say, spot checks intended to detect the presence of antibiotic residues and products having a hormonal or antihormonal effect, the defrosting of part of the shipment in the case of frozen or deep frozen goods and, in certain cases, verification of the water content. The quantities of poultrymeat seized at the time of importation illustrate the need for such inspections.

Health checks, both on poultrymeat produced in the national territory and imported fresh poultry are, the Belgian Government states, subject to payment of a fee by the producer or the importer which is intended to cover the cost of such checks. The fees charged for health inspection of fresh poultrymeat produced in the national territory and for inspection of imported meat are part of a single body of rules established under the same basic law. In both their content and their effect, the rules regarding the fees chargeable in respect of health checks carried out on imported poultry correspond to those dealing with the fees chargeable in respect of poultry produced in the national territory. If differences exist in the detailed administrative rules for collection, they are justified on objective grounds. In both cases, the. fees are solely intended to cover the cost of the inspections.

The amount of the common fees was made uniform by the Royal Decree of 20 March 1978. For fresh imported poultry those fees are BFR 80 per 100 kg or part thereof, an amount which is not indexed and is collected by the customs authorities. As regards fresh poultry produced in Belgium, the fees are set out in detail in Article 1 of the Royal Decree of 28 August 1981 and are indexed. At present, they are as follows:

A) Visit of the veterinary expert: BFR 276;

B) According to the type and weight of the animal: BFR 1, BFR 2, BFR 4 or BFR 8 per animal.

Since one kilogram of live weight corresponds to 0.75 kg of dead weight, an inspection charge of BFR 100 is due, within the country, in respect of 75 kg of poultry. In comparison, the inspection charges due on importation represent only 60% of those fees. Thus, within the country, 40% of the inspection charges is in respect of the ante- and postmortem inspection and 60% of the inspection charge is in respect of other checks carried out on poultrymeat, that is to say, those which are carried out between the inspection following slaughter and consumption. The amounts are thus identical for both home-produced and imported products.

According to the criteria laid down in the judgments of the Court of 15 December 1976 (Case 35/76 Simmenthal v Italian Minister for Finance [1976] ECR 1871), of 25 January 1977 (Case 46/76 Bauhuis v Netherlands State [1977] ECR 5) and of 7 April 1981-(Case 132/8.0 United Foods and Another v. Belgian State [1981] ECR 995), those fees do not constitute a charge having an effect equivalent to customs duties. The system of fees is based on one and the same Law, that of 15 April 1975. The products, at issue undergo the health check at the same time, that is, when they are offered for consumption, and the system of health checks carried out on home-produced poultrymeat corresponds to the system of checks carried out on imported poultymeat. There is no useless repetition of the check carried out in the exporting country because the purpose of the check is different, that is, it is intended to verify compliance with Belgian rules and such a check is also carried out. on home-produced poultrymeat. The charges incurred as a result of the inspections carried out. on imported products are, generally, identical to those borne by home-produced products, and that was the express purpose of the Royal Decree of 20 March 1978. The differences between the amounts of the inspection charges and the detailed rules for their collection are justified on objective grounds related to the different ways in which the two products arrive at the place where they are offered for consumption.

Furthermore, the principle of a health check in the country of destination is expressly laid down in Article 9 of Directive 71/118 of 15 February 1971. In accordance with the Baubuis judgment, the fees charged in order to cover the costs of an inspection compatible with the directive do not constitute a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty.

Since Directive 71/118 constituted the first step towards the harmonization of the law governing certain food products including poultrymeat, and since the Member States wish the level of protection of public health to remain unchanged, it seemed wise to leave the Member States the power to legislate in respect of goods not covered by the directive. Once such checks are compatible with the directive, the general principle of nondiscrimination as between imported products and national products is applicable. Genuine equality of treatment requires that both groups of products be subject to the same rules and that such rules have identical consequences. Since the Belgian State is not prohibited from levying a charge intended to cover the cost of health checks on those national products, equal treatment of imports implies that an equivalent charge should be levied for a similar health check carried out on imported products.

The Commission, in its reply, observes first that Article 9 of Directive 71/118 deals exclusively with the possibility of prohibiting the marketing of meat unfit for human consumption, coming from another Member State, and with the possible return of the meat, and not with the compulsory establishment of inspections when frontiers are crossed. Whilst it must be recognized that such checks carried out by the country of destination when its frontier is crossed are permitted by the directive, it must also be emphasized, as may be seen from the directive's eighth recital in the preamble thereto, that the centrepiece of the directive is the establishment of a system of health checks by the country of origin in which the poultry was slaughtered.

As regards the calculations by which the Belgian Government seeks to demonstrate that the inspection charges on importation represent only 60% of the inspection charges applied within the country and that 40% of the inspection charges collected within the country are intended to cover the cost of ante- and postmortem inspections, the Commission observes in the first place that the distinction so made is nowhere to be found in the provisions of Belgian law. Article 1 of the Royal Decree of 28 August 1981 expressly provides that the inspection charges collected inside the country may only be used to cover the cost of the health check before slaughter and of the inspection after slaughter, in other words, the ante- and postmortem inspections. Furthermore, that allegation is difficult to reconcile with the fact that the inspection charges are collected by the customs authorities when the goods cross the frontier. It is thus a check after slaughter and not a check “up to the point where the goods are offered to the consumer”. Finally, the defendant loses sight of the fact that imported meat may be liable to pay inspection charges twice, that is, both in the exporting country and in the country of destination.

As regards the application to this case of the principles laid down in the Court's case-law, the Commission contends that the pecuniary charges in question are not part of a general system of internal dues because home-produced and imported products are not subject to the same charge and because the fact which gives rise to the charge is not the same for both kinds of products. Furthermore, the Belgian authorities also levy inspection charges for imported dried, salted or smoked meat, although they do not do so in the case of home-produced meat of the same type and although those products do not arrive on the market at the same stage as fresh meat after slaughter. Moreover, when the amount of the inspection charges on importation is fixed, no account is taken of the inspection charges already paid in the country of origin in respect of the inspections those products have undergone there.

The fact that an inspection on importation is permitted does not necessarily imply that the dues collected in respect-, of those checks are justified. The inspection charges collected in respect of such inspections remain subject to Article 9 et seq. of the Treaty. In that respect, it is not sufficient to allege that the inspection charges for both imported and home-produced products are based upon the same law.

Finally, the Commission contests the Belgian Government's allegation that all the health checks carried out on home-produced poultrymeat are equivalent to all the inspections carried out on imported poultrymeat because, among other reasons, by virtue of the different units which are used in this context, the inspection charges do not weigh as heavily on all the products and because the total pecuniary charge must be calculated so as to take account of the fees already paid in the country of origin.

The Belgian Government, in its rejoinder, observes in the first place that the possibility of the Belgian State's prohibiting, pursuant to Council Directive 71/118, the marketing of poultrymeat unfit for human consumption presupposes the existence of a prior health inspection so as to determine the state of hygiene of the poultry in question. The Commission recognizes moreover that there are at present no uniform Community rules on the question of health inspections and the financing of the cost of such inspections. In that situation, the Member States cannot be reduced to a policy of the lowest common denominator. The Community legislature has therefore allowed Member States to retain the national systems of public health protection which go beyond the Community requirements, which are regarded solely as a minimum. That is also the meaning of Article 36 of the Treaty.

The Royal Decree of 20 March 1978 was intended to make the inspection charge on poultrymeat on importation equal to the inspection charge for animals slaughtered in Belgium. That intention corresponds to the Commission's concern to ensure that the total health inspection charges levied in respect of imported poultry, including fees already paid in the exporting Member State, are equal to the total of health inspection charges paid in respect of home-produced poultry. It is precisely for this reason that the health inspection charges for imported poultry represent only 60% of the health inspection charges on Belgian poultry. 40% has already been collected in the exporting State in respect of a check intended to achieve another objective.

The difference in the detailed administrative rules for the collection of the charges, and in particular their collection by the customs authorities, is based upon objective grounds, namely, the fact that inspection of imported meat can only be carried out at the frontier, or at the point of destination in the national territory, by the customs administration. The division of administrative powers between the customs administration and the Veterinarians' Fund influences neither the basis nor the effect of the charge, nor does it influence in either case the purpose to which the charge is devoted. In both cases, the objective sought is the protection of public health, and thus requires the inspection operations and the collection of the fee to take place before the goods are offered to the consumer.

The very slight difference between the amount of the fees in francs per kilogram or per animal may be explained by the fact that imported poultrymeat is plucked but it is not plucked at the time of slaughter.

Contrary to the Commission's contention, the health checks carried out on imported products are equivalent in their entirety to those carried out at various stages on similar home-produced goods. The charges levied on imported products when inspection is effected at the frontier take the place of the charges levied when health inspection is carried out on home-produced goods. Those fees are part of a general system of internal dues. Imported products arc subject to them to the same degree as home-produced products. The fact which gives rise to the charge in both cases is a health check required before the poultrymeat is offered to the consumer. The Commission is confusing the time at which the health inspection is carried out with the fact which gives rise to the charge, which is in all cases a health check.

Finally, the difference of 40% in favour of imported products in the amounts charged for imported and home-produced goods in intended to take account of the fees already paid in the exporting Member State in respect of earlier health checks.

IV — Reply of the Belgian Government to the question put by the Court

In reply to a question put to it by the Court concerning the purpose of and the detailed rules for the checks carried out on home-produced and imported poultrymeat, the Belgian Government described the checks in greater detail.

In the case of home-produced poultrymeat, the checks are first of all carried out at the abattoir. Those checks arc the ante-mortem and postmortem health inspections provided for in the Community directives and those dealing with the matters expressly excluded from the scope of Directive 71/118 (Article 6), as well as with the means of transport and the goods to be transported. Further spot-checks are carried out when the meat is being cut up, at which point the checks carried out at the abattoir are repeated. Finally, the same checks are carried out at the meat-processing plants. At the point of distribution and during transport within the national territory, checks are carried out with a view to discovering infringements of the law.

In the case of imported poultrymeat, the checks are carried out, according to the wishes of the importer, either at the customs office through which the goods are imported or at another place acceptable to the inspecting authority, which is generally the place of destination of the goods. Besides the checks provided for in the Community directives, those checks deal, as in the case of home-produced goods, with the matters expressly excluded from the scope of Directive 71/118 (Article 6). The checks in question are limited to the taking of samples and the rest of the goods are not held up.

V — Oral procedure

At the sitting on 7 December 1983, oral argument was presented for the Commission by H. van Lier and for the Kingdom of Belgium by R. Hoebaer and J. Putzeys.

The Advocate General delivered his opinion at the sitting on 7 February 1984.

Decision

1. By an application lodged at the Court Registry on 10 December 1982, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 169 of the EEC Treaty for a declaration that by levying inspection charges for imports of fresh, dried, salted and smoked poultrymeat from other Member States, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 9 and 12 of the EEC Treaty.

2. According to the Belgian Law of 15 April 1965 on inspection of and trade in fish, poultry, rabbits and game and the Royal Decree of 21 September 1970 on inspection of and trade in poultrymeat, poultrymeat intended for human consumption is subject in Belgium to a health check. That check consists, for animals slaughtered in Belgium, of ante-mortem and postmortem health inspections at the abattoir as well as checks when the meat is cut up in the meat-processing plants and at the time of distribution and transport within the national territory. As regards imported poultrymeat, a check is carried out on importation, either at the customs office or at the place of destination of the goods, and, according to the stage at which the meat is imported, at the same stages as for home-produced meat.

3. By virtue of Article 6 of the abovementioned Law, fees may be charged which are intended to cover the cost of the health examination, expert inspection and the check on importation. The inspection charges on importation, which are at issue in this case, have been fixed by Article 59 of the abovementioned decree of 21 September 1970, as amended, at BFR 80 per 100 kg or part of 100 kg of poultrymeat, an amount which is not indexed and is collected by the customs authorities. As regards animals slaughtered in Belgium, the decree of 28 August 1981, as later amended, provides for fees, intended to cover the cost of the health examination before slaughter and the expert inspection after slaughter, of BFR 276 for each visit by the veterinary expert and, according to the species and weight of the animal, of BFR 1, 2, 4 or 8 per animal, amounts which are indexed and payable monthly to the veterinarians' professional organizations.

4. Such systematic health inspections carried out on importation were the subject of the Court's judgment of 6 October 1983 (Joined Cases 2 to 4/82 Ddhatze Frères Le Lion SA and Others v Belgian State [1983] ECR 2973 in which it was held that such an inspection, carried out in order to ascertain any changes in the condition of meat whilst in transit from the exporting State and its state of preservation on entering the territory of the State of destination, falls within the scope of the public health inspection carried out in the exporting country in accordance with Council Directive 64/433 of 26 June 1964 (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 185) and Council Directive 71/118 of 15 February 1971 (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1971 (I), p. 106), both on health problems affecting trade in meat or poultrymeat.

5. During the proceedings in this case, the Belgian Government has contended that the health checks carried out in Belgium on imported poultrymeat are not contrary to the aforementioned provisions of Community law or to Articles 30 and 36 of the EEC Treaty, because those checks, which are necessary in the interests of public health, relate first to any changes which may have occurred in the condition of the meat since importation and, secondly, cover areas expressly reserved to the Member States by the Community rules.

6. In this connection, the Belgian Government has relied particularly on Article 9 of Directive 71/118 which allows a Member State to prohibit the marketing in its territory of fresh poultrymeat from another Member State if at the time of the health inspection carried out in the country of destination it is found that such meat is unfit for human consumption. The checks in this case are thus, it is claimed, provided for in the directive itself, in respect of which, according to the Court's case-law, a fee may therefore be charged.

7. It should be emphasized first of all in this connection that this action, like the reasoned opinion delivered to the Belgian Government by the Commission on 10 February 1982, is directed only to the compatibility of the fees charged on the occasion of those checks with the prohibition between Member States of customs duties and charges having equivalent effect. The question whether the systematic checks for which the fees in dispute are charged are, themselves, in accordance with Community law has been expressly excluded by the Commission from this action for failure to fulfil obligations.

8. As regards the argument based on Article 9 of Directive 71/118, it is sufficient to note that Article 9 of that directive in no way requires Member States to carry out such checks on imported meat but may at most be understood as permitting them. Since they are not checks carried out in application of Directive 71/118, that directive cannot be relied upon to justify the levying of an inspection charge in respect thereof.

9. The Commission has based its action on the contention that the contested charges, levied in respect of health checks on imported poultrymeat, constitute charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties within the meaning of Article 9 of the Treaty because they are charges unilaterally levied by the Belgian State and are not part of a general system of internal dues.

10. In the view of the Belgian Government, the charges at issue constitute payment for a service rendered to the importer. Furthermore, they correspond to the charges levied in respect of checks carried out on homeproduced poultrymeat, the charges being, in both cases, completely identical, if account is taken, in the case of imported products, of the fees already charged in the exporting Member State. In spite of certain differences of form as regards the detailed rules for the collection of the charges, they are part of a general system of internal dues.

11. Article 9 of the Treaty prohibits between Member States customs duties and all charges having equivalent effect. That prohibition, which makes no distinction on the basis of the purpose for which the pecuniary charges whose abolition it envisages are levied, also includes charges demanded in respect of health checks effected by reason of the importation of goods. In accordance with the settled case-law of the Court, the situation would be different only if the pecuniary charges were part of a general system of internal dues applied systematically in accordance with the same criteria to domestic products and imported products alike or if those charges constituted payment for a service actually rendered to the importer (see in particular the judgment of 14 December 1972, Case 29/72 Marimex v Italian Finance Administration [1972] ECR 1309, and the judgment of 11 October 1973, Case 39/73 REWE-Zentralfinanz v Direktor der Landwirtschaftskammer Westfalen-Lippe [1973] ECR 1039).

12. As the Court has declared on a number of occasions since the abovementioned judgment of 11 October 1973 (cf. judgment of 5 February 1976, Case 87/75 Bresciani v Amministrazione Italiana delle Finanze [1976] ECR 129; judgment of 15 December 1976, Case 35/76 Simmentbal v Italian Minister for Finance [1976] ECR 1871; and judgment of 8 November 1979, Case 251/78 Denkavit Futtermittel v Minister far Ernährung [1979] ECR 3369), checks such as those in this case, which are part of the administrative activity of the State, intended to protect, in the public interest, public health and hygiene, cannot be regarded as a service rendered to the importer such as to justify the imposition of a pecuniaiy charge.

13. In accordance with the abovementioned case-law, the classification of the disputed fees as regards the Treaty depends therefore on the question whether those fees are determined according to criteria different from those used to fix the charges imposed upon comparable national products, or whether they are pecuniaiy charges forming part of a general system of internal dues applied systematically, for the purposes of the checks in question, in accordance with the same criteria to domestic products and imported products alike.

14. In that connection, the Commission has contended first that home-produced dried, salted and smoked poultrymeat, in contrast to imported products, is not subject to thé disputed fees.

15. The Belgian Government has been obliged to recognize the truth of that statement. It announced at the hearing that the measures necessary to abolish the checks and the levying of the disputed charges for imports of those categories of meat had been adopted. Later, it informed the Court that that had been done by means of a Royal Decree of 6 December 1983, amending the Royal Decree of 21 September 1970.

16. As regards that aspect of the dispute, the Court can only take note of the Belgian Government's declaration and state that before the amendment of the rules at issue, the charges levied for imports of those categories of meat did not correspond to any charges in respect of comparable home-produced goods. The charges in question thus constituted, as regards those categories of poultrymeat, a charge having an effect equivalent to customs duties in the abovementioned sense.

17. With regard to the inspection charges for fresh poultrymeat, the Belgian Government has contended that the differences in the detailed administrative rules for the collection of the charges for both groups of products are justified on objective grounds. The amount of the charges is calculated in such a way that the charges in respect of imported products represent 60% of the charges in respect of national products, which is explained by the fact that 40% of the inspection charges levied in respect of home-produced goods is used to effect the ante- and postmortem health inspections, which are not carried out, at least within the country, in the case of imported products, whilst 60% of the charges in respect of home-produced goods is used to effect the other checks, carried out, for both imported and home-produced goods, between the time of slaughter and the stage of consumption.

18. It must be stated in that regard that the levying of inspection charges in respect of imported poultrymeat and home-produced meat is part of a body of rules derived from one and the same basic Law. It should however be pointed out that the charges on importation are levied pursuant to a decree of 21 September 1970, whilst the charges levied in respect of checks carried out on home-produced meat were provided for, until the State fixed them by a decree of 28 August 1981, in an agreement between the relevant professional bodies. Furthermore, the charges in respect of home-produced meat are paid directly to the veterinarians' relevant professional organizations, whilst the charges on importation, collected by the customs authorities, become part of the general State budget and are used only indirectly to cover the cost of the health checks.

19. Moreover, the criteria used to calculate the charges are different for the two groups of products. In the case of home-produced meat, there is, first, a fixed sum for the visit of the veterinary expert and, secondly, an amount per animal examined, calculated according to an index-linked rate. The charges affecting imported meat are fixed at a standard rate per 100 kg or part thereof and are not indexed. Those differences between the criteria make it very difficult to compare the charges which are actually levied on the two groups of products.

20. The calculations on this subject presented by the Belgian Government and not contested by the Commission, even if they are correct, compare only the average charges for the two groups of products. In certain cases, the differences between the criteria applied to the two groups may result in higher charges' being imposed on imported products. That is the case particularly when the standard amount is due in respect of a small fraction of 100 kg, in particular where small quantities are imported, or where the goods are imported in a condition to be distributed direct to the consumer, without any processing taking place in Belgium, and where the number of checks carried out in Belgium is thus limited.

21. An appraisal of the national rules at issue in terms of their form, their content and their effects, reveals therefore that the inspection charges levied in respect of home-produced meat are not part of a general system of internal dues imposing the same charge, in accordance with the same criteria, to domestic and imported products alike.

22. Both during the procedure prior to litigation and before the Court, the Belgian Government contended that, in the light of the differences between one Member State and another in the costs or fees charged in respect of veterinary inspections, there would be, if the veterinary inspection dues on importation were abolished, a distortion of competition in the case of goods exported from a Member State where such costs or fees were low to a Member State where they were higher, to the detriment of the latter State.

23. That line of argument cannot be accepted. The prohibition of charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties on imports is general and is not subject to the condition that the costs of production, including public charges, of the products which must be able to move freely within the Community be previously harmonized. Furthermore, the reasons put forward tend to show that the contested charges are not levied, independently of the origin of goods, in the context of a general system of internal dues, but are rather specifically imposed on imported products, a fact which characterizes them as a charge having an effect equivalent to customs duties. The fact that they are intended to offset charges which home-produced products must bear does not deprive them of that character.

24. Consequently, by levying inspection charges for imports of fresh, dried, salted and smoked poultrymeat from other Member States, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 9 and 12 of the EEC Treaty.

Costs

25. Under Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs. Since the Kingdom of Belgium has failed in its submissions it must be ordered to pay the costs.

On those grounds, THE COURT hereby:

1 Declares that the Kingdom of Belgium, by levying inspection charges for imports of fresh, dried, salted and smoked poultrymeat from other Member States, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 9 and 12 of the EEC Treaty;

2 Orders the Kingdom to Belgium of pay the costs.