The Court has found that the events which gave rise to the action, which are not disputed by the French Government, manifestly created obstacles to the free movement of agricultural products from other Member States, since serious incidents, such as the interception of lorries, the destruction of their loads, violence against drivers, threats against wholesalers and retailers and the damaging of goods when on display in shops, took place year after year - and over a period of more than 10 years - and that the measures adopted by the French Government were not sufficient to prevent and effectively dissuade the perpetrators of the offences from committing and repeating them. Those events were also such as to create a climate of insecurity which has a deterrent effect on trade flows as a whole.

Moreover, it has not been denied that despite the fact that the acts of violence were often committed during the same periods of the year and at quite specific places, and that, in certain cases, the French authorities had been warned of the imminence of demonstrations by farmers, the police were either not present on the spot or did not intervene.

As regards the numerous acts of vandalism committed between April and August 1993, the French authorities have been able to cite only a single case of criminal prosecution, even though the demonstrators were identifiable or even known to the authorities.

The Court has pointed out that the free movement of goods is one of the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the EC Treaty. It must be understood, inter alia, as being intended to eliminate all barriers to imports in intra-Community trade.

On that basis, the provisions of the Treaty concerning the free movement of goods and the Member States' duty to cooperate in the fulfilment of obligations arising out of the Treaty require them not merely themselves to abstain from adopting measures liable to constitute an obstacle to intra-Community trade, but also to take all necessary and appropriate measures to prevent that trade from being obstructed on their territory by actions by private individuals.

While the Member States retain exclusive competence to determine what measures are most appropriate to ensure the free movement of goods, it falls to the Court to verify, in the cases brought before it, whether such measures are adequate.

As regards the French Government's submission that more determined action by the police might have provoked still more violent reactions from French farmers, the Court has pointed out that apprehension of internal difficulties does not justify a failure by a Member State to apply Community law correctly.

The Court has also rejected the argument based on the very difficult socio-economic context of the French market in fruit and vegetables, stating that, in the sphere of the common agricultural policy, the Community alone has the power to adopt the measures required in order to deal with those difficulties.

Lastly, the assumption by the French Republic of responsibility for making good the losses caused to the victims does not cure that Member State's failure to fulfil its obligations.

The Court has therefore concluded, in line with the Opinion of Advocate General Lenz of 9 July 1997, that the French Government has manifestly and persistently abstained from adopting appropriate and adequate measures to put an end to the acts of vandalism which jeopardize the free movement on its territory of certain agricultural products originating in other Member States and to prevent the recurrence of such acts.

Exclusively for media use - Unofficial document not binding on the Court, available in all the Community languages.

For further information, see the Homepage of the Court on the Internet: http://www.curia.eu.int or contact Tom Kennedy (tel (352) 4303 3355, fax (352) 4303 2500)