Judgment of the Court of 12 November 1969. Erich Stauder v City of Ulm - Sozialamt. - Reference for
a preliminary ruling: Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart - Germany. Case 29-69.


1 BY AN ORDER OF 18 JUNE 1969 RECEIVED BY THE COURT REGISTRY ON 26 JUNE 1969 THE VERWALTUNGSGERICHT
STUTTGART HAS REFERRED TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY
THE QUESTION WHETHER THE REQUIREMENT IN ARTICLE 4 OF DECISION NO 69/71/EEC OF THE COMMISSION OF THE
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES THAT THE SALE OF BUTTER AT REDUCED PRICES TO BENEFICIARIES UNDER CERTAIN
SOCIAL WELFARE SCHEMES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE NAME OF BENEFICIARIES SHALL BE
DIVULGED TO RETAILERS CAN BE CONSIDERED COMPATIBLE WITH THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY LAW IN
FORCE .

2 THE ABOVEMENTIONED DECISION IS ADDRESSED TO ALL THE MEMBER STATES AND AUTHORIZES THEM, WITH A
VIEW TO STIMULATING THE SALE OF SURPLUS QUANTITIES OF BUTTER ON THE COMMON MARKET, TO MAKE BUTTER
AVAILABLE AT A LOWER PRICE THAN NORMAL TO CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF CONSUMERS WHO ARE IN RECEIPT OF
CERTAIN SOCIAL ASSISTANCE . THIS AUTHORIZATION IS SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS DESIGNED, INTER
ALIA, TO ENSURE THAT THE PRODUCT, WHEN MARKETED IN THIS WAY, IS NOT PREVENTED FROM REACHING ITS
PROPER DESTINATION . TO THAT END ARTICLE 4 OF DECISION NO 69/71 STIPULATES IN TWO OF ITS VERSIONS,
ONE BEING THE GERMAN VERSION, THAT THE STATES MUST TAKE ALL NECESSARY MEASURES TO ENSURE THAT
BENEFICIARIES CAN ONLY PURCHASE THE PRODUCT IN QUESTION ON PRESENTATION OF A " COUPON INDICATING
THEIR NAMES ", WHILST IN THE OTHER VERSIONS, HOWEVER, IT IS ONLY STATED THAT A " COUPON REFERRING
TO THE PERSON CONCERNED " MUST BE SHOWN, THUS MAKING IT POSSIBLE TO EMPLOY OTHER METHODS OF
CHECKING IN ADDITION TO NAMING THE BENEFICIARY . IT IS THEREFORE NECESSARY IN THE FIRST PLACE TO
ASCERTAIN EXACTLY WHAT METHODS THE PROVISION AT ISSUE PRESCRIBES .

3 WHEN A SINGLE DECISION IS ADDRESSED TO ALL THE MEMBER STATES THE NECESSITY FOR UNIFORM
APPLICATION AND ACCORDINGLY FOR UNIFORM INTERPRETATION MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO CONSIDER ONE VERSION
OF THE TEXT IN ISOLATION BUT REQUIRES THAT IT BE INTERPRETED ON THE BASIS OF BOTH THE REAL
INTENTION OF ITS AUTHOR AND THE AIM HE SEEKS TO ACHIEVE, IN THE LIGHT IN PARTICULAR OF THE VERSIONS
IN ALL FOUR LANGUAGES .

4 IN A CASE LIKE THE PRESENT ONE, THE MOST LIBERAL INTERPRETATION MUST PREVAIL, PROVIDED THAT IT IS
SUFFICIENT TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES PURSUED BY THE DECISION IN QUESTION . IT CANNOT, MOREOVER, BE
ACCEPTED THAT THE AUTHORS OF THE DECISION INTENDED TO IMPOSE STRICTER OBLIGATIONS IN SOME MEMBER
STATES THAN IN OTHERS .

5 THIS INTERPRETATION IS, MOREOVER, CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSION'S DECLARATION THAT AN AMENDMENT
DESIGNED TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT THAT A NAME SHALL APPEAR ON THE COUPON WAS PROPOSED BY THE
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE TO WHICH THE DRAFT OF DECISION NO 69/71 WAS SUBMITTED FOR ITS OPINION . THE
LAST RECITAL OF THE PREAMBLE TO THIS DECISION SHOWS THAT THE COMMISSION INTENDED TO ADOPT THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT .

6 IT FOLLOWS THAT THE PROVISION IN QUESTION MUST BE INTERPRETED AS NOT REQUIRING - ALTHOUGH IT DOES
NOT PROHIBIT - THE IDENTIFICATION OF BENEFICIARIES BY NAME . THE COMMISSION WAS THUS ABLE TO
PUBLISH ON 29 JULY 1969 AN AMENDING DECISION TO THIS EFFECT . EACH OF THE MEMBER STATES IS
ACCORDINGLY NOW ABLE TO CHOOSE FROM A NUMBER OF METHODS BY WHICH THE COUPONS MAY REFER TO THE
PERSON CONCERNED .

7 INTERPRETED IN THIS WAY THE PROVISION AT ISSUE CONTAINS NOTHING CAPABLE OF PREJUDICING THE
FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS ENSHRINED IN THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY LAW AND PROTECTED BY THE
COURT .