Opinion of Mrs Advocate General Rozès delivered on 26 april 1983
1 Translated from the French.
2 Subparagraphs (a) and (f).
3 Report by Mr Boukc Bcumcr to the European Parliament of 3. 11. 1982, Document I-789/82, para. 9; judgment of the Court of Justice of 29. 10. 1980 in Van Laudcxvyck v Commission (the so-called Fcdctab case), Joined Cases 209 to 215 and 218/78, [1980] ECR 3125, para. 121 at p. 3260.
4 Third recital in the preamble) referred to in the Court's judgment in the Fedetab case (para. 117).
5 Fifth and sixth recitals.
6 Seventh and eighth recitals.
7 Fedetab judgment, at p. 3162 (under Facts and Issues).
8 Sixteenth General Report on the Activities of the European Communities in 1982, para. 238.
9 Fifteenth General Report, para. 224.
10 Sixteenth General Report, para. 239.
11 Rivendite di Stato.
12 Short title: Fedetab Recommendation.
13 Report by Mr Bouke Bcumcr to the European Parliament of 3. 11. 1982, Document I-789/82, para. 9; judgment of the Court of Justice of 29. 10. 1980 in Van Landewyck v Commission (the so-called Fedetab case), Joined Cases 209 to 215 and 218/78, [1980] ECR 3125, para. 121 at p. 3260.
14 Fedetab judgment, at p. 3218.
15 See para. 130 of the Fedetab judgment.
16 Fedetab, para. 133 (emphasis supplied).
17 Bcumcr report (cited above), para. 9.
18 See for example the annexes to Italian Decree-Law No 697 of 1. 10. 1982 quoted by the representative of Italy at the hearing of oral submissions.
19 Judgment of 20. 2. 1979 in REWE v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (the so-called Cassis de Dijon case), Case 120/78 [1979] ECR 649 at p. 662, para. 7.
20 Judgment of 13. 3. 1979 in Hansen v Hauptzollamt Flensburg, Case 91/78 [1979] ECR 935 at p. 953, para. 9.
21 Idem, para. 13 at p. 954. Endorsed by: two judgments of 17. 2. 1976, namely REWE v Hauptzollamt Landau, Case 45/75 [1976] ECR 181 at p. 198, para. 26, and Hauptzollamt Göttingen v Miritz, Case 91/75 [1976] ECR 217 at p. 229, para. 8: Article 37 (1) ... prohibits any discrimination, when the transitional period has ended, regarding the conditions under which goods arc procured and marketed between nationals of Member States; judgment of 13. 3. 1979, Peureux v Directeur ties Services Fiscaux de la Haute-Saône et du Territoire de Belfort, Case 86/78 [1979] ECR 897 at p. 912, para. 30, which repeats the paragraphs quoted from the REWE and Miritz judgments.
22 Judgment of 3. 2. 1976, Pubblico Ministero v Mangitela, Case 59/75 [1976] ECR 91 at p. 100, para. 9, and the abovememioned Miritz judgment, para. 8. The same idea is couched in different terms in the following judgments: REWE, of 17. 2. 1976, mentioned above, para. 20 at p. 198; Peureux, of 13. 3. 1979, mentioned above, para. 30 at p. 912; Hansen, of 13. 3. 1979, mentioned above, para. 13 at p. 954 and para. 19 at p. 956.
23 Manghera, [1976] ECR 100.
24 Manghera, Opinion at p. 108.
25 Opinion of 25. 6. 1964 in Case 6/64 Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 585, at p. 611.
26 Note initialled by Professor Kovar on the judgments of this Court of 13. 3. 1979 in Cases 86/78, 91/78 and 119/78, recorded in the Journal de Droit International 1981, p. 126.
27 Position des Monopoles Publics par Rapport aux Monopoles Privés, Semaine de Bruges, 1977, pp. 554 and 555.
28 Judgment of 13. 3. 1979, Hansen (supra), para. 19 at p. 956.
29 Hansen, para. 9 at p.953.
30 Charles-Etienne Gudin, Les Monopoles Nationaux à Caractère Commercial dans ie Droit de la Communauté économique européenne, a doctoral thesis at the Université de Paris II, 1977, Vol. I, p. 129.
31 Judgment of 20. 1. 1981, Musik-Vertrieb membran v GEMA, Joined Cases 55 and 57/80 [1981] ECR 147 at p. 162, para. 14: ...the essential purpose of the Treaty, which is to unite national markets into a single market...; judgment of 25. 10. 1977 Metro v Commission, Case 26/76 [1977] ECR 1875 at p. 1904, para. 20: The requirement... that competition shall not be distorted implies the existence on the market of... the degree of competition necessary to ensure the observance of the basic requirements and the attainment of the objectives of the Treaty, in particular the creation of a single market achieving conditions similar to those of a domestic market.
32 Baron Snoy et d'Oppucrs, La Notion de l'Intérêt dc la Communauté à l'Article 90 du Traité de Rome sur le Marché Commun, Rimila di Diritto Industriale 1963, pp. 247 and 248 (emphasis supplied). Further endorsed by: (1) In general: Worllcy, An Introduction to the Law o/the European Economic Community, Manchester 1972, Chapter 6 (Monopolies under the EEC Treaty), p. 67 ļ (2) On the particular point of the equivalence of affecting trade between Member States (Article 85 (I) of the Treaty) to the concept of obstacles to trade within the Community as contained in this Court's classic definition of a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction within the meaning of Article 30 of the Treaty: observations submitted on behalf of the Commission by van dc Haar and Kavcka in Joined Cases 177 and 178/82; (3) As regards tobacco: the abovementioned Bcumcr report, para. 6.
33 Mangbera, at p. 95.
34 Reasoned opinion of 13. 11. 1980, p. 9.
35 A principle acknowledged in particular since this Court's judgment of 14. 12. 1962 in Commission v Luxembourg and Kingdom of Belgium (the so-called Gingerbread case), Joined Cases 2 and 3/62 [1962] ECR 425; see also inter alia the judgment of 9. 12. 1981 in Commission v Italy (the so-called Wine-vinegar case), Case 193/80 [1981] ECR 3019 at p. 3033, para. 17.
36 Judgment of 29. 10. 1980 in the Fcdctab case, mentioned above, para. 110 at p. 3257 and paras 131 to 134 at pp. 3263 and 3264.
37 Para. 13 (cited above) of the judgment of 13. 3. 1979 in llamen, Case 91/78, at p. 954.
38 Reference given above, at p. 108
39 Endorsed by the Opinion of Mr Advocate General Lagrange in the case of Costa v ENEL, cited above.
40 Opinion delivered on 23. 2. 1972 in Case 82/71, Pubblico Ministero v Sail [1972] ECR 119, at pp. 143 and 144.
41 Emphasis supplied.
42 Judgment of 13. 7. 1966 in Consten and Grundig v Commission, Joined Cases 56 and 58/64 [1966] ECR 299, at p. 341; as the Court is aware, the judgment relates to competition, but very similar wording was adopted with reference to measures having equivalent effect in the Court's judgment of 11. 7. 1974 in Procureur du Roi v Dassonville, Case 8/74 [1974] ECR 837 at p. 852, para. 5.
43 20. 2. 1979, KEWE v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein, Case 120/78 [1979] ECR 649 at p. 662, para. 8..
44 To quote Mr Advocate General Roemer in the Sail case mentioned above, [1972] ECR 119, at p. 145.
45 17. 6. 1981, Commission v Ireland, Case 113/80 [1981] ECR 1625 at p. 1639, para. 9 (the so-called Irish souvenirs case).
46 20. 4. 1983, Schutzverband gegen Unwesen in der Wirtschaft v Weinvertriebs GmbH, Case 59/82 [9831 ECR 1217 at p. 1227, para. 11.
47 27. 3. 1974, BRT v Sabam and NV Fonior, Case 127/73 [197-1] ECR 313 at p. 318, para. 19.
48 Les Monopoles dans le Marché Commun, l'Article 37 du Traité de Rome, Report (1965-67) of a study group of the International League Against Unfair Competition! Milan 1968, p. 75.
49 Government Enterprises and National Monopolies under the EEC Treaty, Common Market Law Review, Vol. Ill, 1965-66, No 4, p. 454.
50 Commentary on Article 90 in. Commentario CEE by Quadri, Monaco and Trabucchi, Milan 1965, p. 696.
51 Disciplina della Concorrenza nella CEE, Naples 1978, p. 120.
52 It may be noted that in the Manghera case the positions of the Commission and Italy were reversed: see the Opinion of Mr Advocate General Warner, at p. 106.
53 Observations of the Italian Government in Manghera, mentioned above, [1976] ECR 91, at p. 95.
54 Statement by the representative of the French Government in Case 90/82.
55 Corte di Cassazione, Sezione III, judgment of 17. 1. 1975, mentioned in Eversen and Speri, 1975, No 1048; endorsed by Deringer in The Competition Law of the EEC, New York 1968, No 888, p. 252.
56 Professor Arved Deringer agrees: op. cit., No 894.
57 Deringer, op. cit., No 892.
58 Deringer, op. cit., No 894.
59 Sec also: Deringer, op. cit., No 900.