1 BY ORDER OF 13 APRIL 1973, RECEIVED AT THE REGISTRY ON 30 APRIL 1973, THE TRIBUNALE PENALE OF TRENT REFERRED TO THE COURT, UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY, TWO QUESTIONS OF INTERPRETATION CONCERNING REGULATION NO 92/68 OF THE COUNCIL OF 23 JANUARY 1968 ON THE COMMUNITY TARIFF QUOTA OF 22 000 METRIC TONS OF FROZEN BEEF AND VEAL, BOUND AT 20 PER CENT UNDER THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE ( GATT ) ( OJ L 23, P . 2 ) AND REGULATION NO 110/69 OF THE COUNCIL OF 16 JANUARY 1969 ON THE SAME SUBJECT ( OJ L 18, P . 1 ).
2 IN REGULATION NO 92/68, THE COUNCIL CARRIED OUT THE APPORTIONMENT OF THE QUOTA BETWEEN THE MEMBER STATES FOR THE YEAR 1968, ALLOCATING A QUOTA SHARE OF 15 000 METRIC TONS TO ITALY .
UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE REGULATION, EACH MEMBER STATE WAS TO MANAGE ITS OWN SHARE OF THE QUOTA " IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS OWN ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS ".
IN REGULATION NO 110/69 THE COUNCIL DIVIDED THE QUOTA BETWEEN THE MEMBER STATES FOR THE YEAR 1969, ALLOCATING A SHARE OF 12 000 METRIC TONS TO ITALY .
ARTICLE 2 OF THIS REGULATION PROVIDED THAT " THE MEMBER STATES SHALL, AS REGARDS THEIR OWN SHARE OF THE QUOTA, DETERMINE THE CONDITIONS OF ELIGIBILITY FOR ACCESS TO THE TARIFF QUOTA CONCERNED AND SHALL MANAGE THEIR QUOTA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR OWN ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS, ESPECIALLY THOSE DEALING WITH TARIFF QUOTAS ".
3 THE FIRST QUESTION ASKS WHETHER, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 3 OF REGULATION NO 92/68 AND ARTICLE 2 OF REGULATION NO 110/69, TAKEN TOGETHER, THE MEMBER STATES CAN, IN REGARD TO THE CONSIGNMENTS ALLOTTED TO THEM IN THE SHARE-OUT OF THE TWO QUOTAS, ADOPT PROVISIONS DESIGNED TO CONTROL THEIR USE .
THE FILE SHOWS THAT, IN ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULARS, THE ITALIAN AUTHORITIES RESERVED THEIR SHARE OF THE QUOTAS FOR DIRECT CONSUMPTION TO THE EXCLUSION OF OTHER USES AND DEMANDED AN UNDERTAKING FROM CONSIGNEES THAT THEY WOULD COMPLY WITH THIS PRESCRIPTION .
HAVING OBTAINED A SHARE OF THE QUOTA DISTRIBUTED UNDER THESE CONDITIONS, THE DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN ACTION ARE THE SUBJECT OF CRIMINAL CHARGES BECAUSE THEY DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE USE THUS INDICATED IN THAT THEY DELIVERED A CERTAIN QUANTITY OF FROZEN MEAT TO THE PROCESSING INDUSTRY .
4 THE QUOTA INVOLVED WAS NEGOTIATED BY THE COMMUNITY ON THE BASIS OF THE POWERS CONFERRED ON IT BY THE TREATY IN MATTERS OF TARIFF AND COMMERCIAL POLICY .
IN THE PREAMBLE OF THE TWO REGULATIONS ON APPORTIONMENT OF THE QUOTA, IT WAS EXPRESSLY DESCRIBED AS A " COMMUNITY " QUOTA .
ACCORDINGLY THE QUOTA-PARTS ALLOCATED TO THE MEMBER STATES ARE OF THE SAME CHARACTER .
UNDER ARTICLE 3 OF REGULATION NO 92/68, THE MEMBER STATES ARE ENTRUSTED WITH MANAGEMENT OF THEIR QUOTA-PART SO THAT THEY MAY SHARE IT OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR OWN ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS .
THE WORDING OF THIS ARTICLE WAS REPEATED IN ARTICLE 2 OF REGULATION NO 110/69 BUT IT IS AMPLIFIED TO THE EXTENT THAT THE MEMBER STATES SHALL DETERMINE " THE CONDITIONS OF ELIGIBILITY " TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE QUOTA .
5 AS CERTAIN CONDITIONS NEED TO BE LAID DOWN IN REGARD TO ALLOCATION, AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE METHODS BY WHICH QUOTAS ARE MANAGED, THE VARIATION IN WORDING CANNOT BE READ AS AN INTENTION SUBSTANTIALLY TO MODIFY THE RULES APPLICABLE IN 1968 FOR MANAGEMENT OF THE 1969 QUOTA .
MOREOVER, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE PREAMBLE OF REGULATION NO 110/69 THAT THE COUNCIL HAD NO DESIRE TO MAKE THE SYSTEM OF MANAGEMENT ANY DIFFERENT FROM THAT LAID DOWN IN THE REGULATION APPLICABLE TO THE QUOTA FOR 1968 .
THE QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION REFERRED TO THE COURT IS, ACCORDINGLY, CONCERNED WITH THE SCOPE OF THE MANAGEMENT POWERS DELEGATED TO THE MEMBER STATES IN THE PRESENT CASE, AND, IN THE CONTEXT OF THESE POWERS, WHAT CONDITIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL REGARDING THE QUOTAS CONCERNED .
6 UNDER THE COMMUNITY SYSTEM OF TARIFF QUOTAS, THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY - COUNCIL AND COMMISSION - HAVE POWER TO DETERMINE THE ECONOMIC USE TO WHICH THESE QUOTAS ARE TO BE PUT AND, CONSEQUENTLY, TO DECIDE THE WAY IN WHICH THEY ARE TO BE ADMINISTERED .
THE CONDITIONS RELATING TO USE ARE DETERMINED BOTH BY THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS UNDERTAKEN BY THE COMMUNITY AND BY THE GENERAL OR LOCALIZED OBJECTIVES OF ECONOMIC POLICY SOUGHT BY THE INSTITUTIONS IN EXERCISING THEIR POWERS .
AS THE PRESENT CASE INVOLVES AN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT, THESE CONDITIONS MUST BE DETERMINED MORE SPECIFICALLY BEARING IN MIND THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE SECTOR OF THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET CONCERNED .
7 AGAINST THIS BACKGROUND ONLY THE INSTITUTIONS HAVE THE RIGHT TO PRESCRIBE A USE FOR THE QUOTA .
IN SO DOING THEY CAN KEEP THE QUOTA OPEN TO ALL WHO WISH TO MAKE USE OF IT, THEMSELVES PRESCRIBE THE USE TO WHICH IT IS TO BE PUT, OR, AGAIN, GIVE THE MEMBER STATES A FREE HAND TO USE IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR OWN INTERESTS .
THE AUTHORITY ENJOYED BY THE MEMBER STATES UNDER THIS THIRD POSSIBILITY WOULD REQUIRE A DECLARATION OF INTENT ON THE PART OF THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS, AND THE FAILURE TO PRESCRIBE A USE FOR A QUOTA MUST THEREFORE BE INTERPRETED AS FREEDOM FOR ALL CONCERNED TO HAVE ACCESS TO IT .
8 ANY PROVISION BY A MEMBER STATES ALLOCATING A COMMUNITY QUOTA ON CONDITIONS IT HAD DECIDED FOR ITSELF WOULD RUN THE RISK OF COMPROMISING THE OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMUNITY' S ECONOMIC POLICY AS WELL AS EQUALITY OF TREATMENT FOR ALL WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION .
IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 92/68 AND OF REGULATION NO 110/69 ON THE DELEGATION TO MEMBER STATES OF THE WAY IN WHICH QUOTAS SHOULD BE ADMINISTERED MUST BE TAKEN TO MEAN THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DIRECTION BY THE COUNCIL ON THE USE TO BE MADE OF THEM, REFERENCE IN THESE REGULATIONS TO THE " ADMINISTRATIVE " PROVISIONS OF THE MEMBER STATES CANNOT BE INTERPRETED AS EXTENDING BEYOND THE TECHNICAL AND PROCEDURAL RULES DESIGNED TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL TERMS OF THE QUOTA AND THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL TREATMENT FOR THOSE ENTITLED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT .
9 AS SOON, HOWEVER, AS A MEMBER STATE INTRODUCES CONDITIONS REGARDING USE IN PURSUIT OF OBJECTIVES OF ECONOMIC POLICY WHICH ARE NOT THE SUBJECT OF PROVISIONS ADOPTED BY THE COMMUNITY, THESE ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS ARE EXCEEDED .
FROM THE FOREGOING IT FOLLOWS THAT, IN ENTRUSTING THE MEMBER STATES WITH THE MANAGEMENT OF SHARES OF A COMMUNITY TARIFF QUOTA, ARTICLE 3 OF REGULATION NO 92/68 AND ARTICLE 2 OF REGULATION NO 110/69 DID NOT EMPOWER MEMBER STATES TO ADOPT PROVISIONS DESIGNED TO GOVERN THE USE TO WHICH THEIR ALLOTTED SHARE IS PUT .
10 AS THE SECOND QUESTION WAS CONDITIONAL ON THE FIRST BEING ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, THERE IS NO NEED TO ANSWER IT .
11 THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC AND THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, WHICH HAVE SUBMITTED OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT, ARE NOT RECOVERABLE AND, AS THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE A STEP IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNALE PENALE OF TRENT, THE DECISION ON COSTS IS A MATTER FOR THAT COURT .
THE COURT
IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO IT BY THE TRIBUNALE OF TRENT BY ORDER OF THAT COURT DATED 13 APRIL 1973, HEREBY RULES :
ARTICLE 3 OF REGULATION NO 92/68 AND ARTICLE 2 OF REGULATION NO 110/69 ON THE COMMUNITY TARIFF QUOTA OF 22 000 METRIC TONS OF FROZEN BEEF AND VEAL, BOUND AT 20 PER CENT DUTY UNDER GATT, MUST BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN THAT, IN ENTRUSTING THE MEMBER STATES WITH THE MANAGEMENT OF SHARES OF A COMMUNITY TARIFF QUOTA, THEY DO NOT EMPOWER THEM TO ADOPT PROVISIONS DESIGNED TO GOVERN THE USE TO WHICH THEIR ALLOTTED SHARE IS PUT .
