Opinion of Mrs Advocate General Rozès delivered on 10 February 1983

1 Translated from the French.

2 For example, judgment of 17 February 1976 in Case 45/75 REWE v Hauptzollamt Landau (REWE-Zentrale V), [1976] ECR 181, at p. 194, para. 11 of the decision.

3 Case 26/62 Van Gend & Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen [1963] ECR 1, at p. 13.

4 Case 26/62 Van Gend & Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen [1963] ECR 1, at p. 13.

5 Judgment of 29 November 1978, Case 83/78 Pigs Marketing Board v Redmond [1978] ECR 2347 at p. 2366, para. 25 of the decision.

6 Case 295/82, Groupement d'Intérêt Économique īnter-Huiles and Others v Syndicat National des Fabricants Raffineurs d'Huile de Graissage and Others.

7 Judgment of 5 October 1977 in Case 5/77 Tedeschi v Denkami [1977] ECR 1555, at p. 1576, para. 35 of the decision; judgment of 5 April 1979 in Case 148/78, Ratti [1979] ECR 1629, at p. 1644, para. 36 of the decision.

8 Opinion in Case 120/78 REWE v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein, [1979] ECR 649, at p. 671.

9 Opinion in Case 34/78 Yoshida v Kramer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Friesland, [1979] ECR 115, at pp. 147 and 148.

10 The second paragraph of Article í of the decree.

11 Third paragraph of Article 1 of the decree.

12 First paragraph of Article 2 of the decree.

13 Article 3 of the decree.

14 Article 4 of the decree.

15 Article 2 of the order on the conditions for collection.

16 Article 3 of the same order.

17 Article 6 of the decree, supplemented by the order on the conditions for collection.

18 Article 8 of the decree.

19 Article 5 of the order on the conditions for disposal.

20 Article 9 of the decree.

21 In particular, judgment of 20 February 1979 in Case 120/78, REWE v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein, known as the Cassis de Dijon case, [1979] ECR 649, at p. 664, para. 14 of the decision.

22 Judgment of 11 July 1974 in Case 8/74, Procureur du Roi v Dassonville [1974] ECR 837.

23 In particular, judgment of 17 June 1981 in Case 113/80, Commission v Ireland [1981] ECR 1625, at p. 1639, paras 10 and 11 of the decision.

24 Even disregarding the case of the Federal Republic of Germany, which is not accepted by the Syndicat National because of the subsidies awarded to approved disposal undertakings which, in its opinion, distort competition. That is a question which the Court does not have to consider in the context of the present procedure.

25 Wet houdende regels inzake chemische afvalstoffen en afgewerkte olie.

26 Judgment of 27 March 1974 in case 127/73, BRT and Others v SABAM and Others, [1974] ECR 313 at p. 318, paras. 19 to 21 of the decision and Judgment of 14 July 1981 in Case 172/80, Züchner v Bayerische Vereinshank, [1981] ECR 2021 at p. 2030, para. 7 of the decision.