Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mayras

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

This case concerns certain of the Community measures adopted to deal with the consequences of the potato shortage during the winter of 1975/1976. None of the Member States has taken the opportunity to submit observations and the plaintiff in the main action did so only during the oral procedure; however, as the Council and the Commission both availed themselves of the opportunity to do so and as the case concerns the question of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectation — a principle whose consequences are a little difficult to determine — the Court did not assign the case to one of its Chambers. Although it is difficult for the Court to deliver judgment in the abstract on the occasion of an objective review of interpretation or validity carried out within the framework of Article 177 with regard to any expectation which the plaintiff in the main action might have as an individual in the maintenance of a given legal situation, it is not so much that the principle or its consequences which seem to me to present the major problem in this case (first question) as the determination of the exchange rate applicable (second question).

I —. Under Article 1 (1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 348/76 of 17 February 1976 on measures to be taken owing to the difficulties affecting potato supplies, a tax is levied on exports to non-Member countries of non-certified seed potatoes falling within subheading ex 07.01 A I and of potatoes falling within subheading 07.01 A III of the Common Customs Tariff. The amount of the tax is 25 units of account per 100 kg.

II —. The second question put by the national court arises from the fact that the rate of exchange applied at that time in the Federal Republic of Germany in agricultural matters was slightly lower (DM 3.57 per unit of account) than the rate applied in customs matters (DM 3.66 per unit of account).

III —. In these circumstances it seems to me that there is no need to reply to the final question put by the national court.

My opinion is that the Court should reply to the questions put to it in the sense of the observations which I have made above.

1 Translated from the French.