Opinion of Mrs Advocate General Rozès delivered on 9 June 1983

1 Translated from the French.

2 Regulation No 1348/80 of 30 May 1980.

3 Regulation No 1964/80 of 24 July 1980.

4 Judgment of. 23 February 1983 in Case 66/82, Frorrmnçais, [1983] ECR 395, at p. 404, para. 8; see also the same view expressed in my opinion delivered on 23 September 1982 in Case 272/82, RU—MI [1982] ECR 4182.

5 Article'2 of Regulation No 1530/78 in its original version.

6 Judgment of 26 June 1980 in Case 808/78, Pardini [1980] ECR 2103, especially para. 14, at p. 2119.

7 Reply to the first question asked by the Court.

8 Reply to the first question asked by the Court.

9 That figure of 207 therefore represents the number of cases in which the processors failed to comply with the rule contained in Article 2 of Regulation No 1530/78 in its original form. The figure was given by the German Government in reply to the second question asked by the Court.

10 Those 169 contracts were therefore saved from invalidity by the special provision enacted by the contested regulation. The figure was given by the German Government in reply to the second question asked by the Court.

11 In the sole paragraph in the original version, which was not amended by the contested regulation.

12 Judgment of 25 October 1978 in Case 125/77, Koninklijke Scholten-Honig v Hoofdproduktschap voor Akkerhouwprodukten, [1978] ECR 1991, para. 27, at p. 2003; judgment of 15 December 1982 in Case 5/82, Hauptzollamt Krefeld v Maizena, [1982] ECR 4601, paras 16 and 17, at p. 4614; judgment of 23 February 1983 in Case 8/82 Wagner v Bundesanstalt für landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung [1983] ECR 371, paras 18 and 19, at p. 387.