Opinion of Mr Advocate General VerLoren van Themaat delivered on 10 January 1984

1 Translated from the Dutch.

2 At the hearing the Commission used in that regard the expression politique juridiciionelle which in my view however reflects the object of its argument less clearly than the expression policy in the matter of legal protection.

3 According to the third and fourth recitals in the preamble to Regulation No 3017/79, the rides in question arc those amending the anti-dumping rules previously in force in the Community in the light of the Anti-Dumping Code adopted in 1979 in the context of the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and of the agreement concerning subsidies and countervailing measures which was concluded in the same context.

4 The internal dumping rules contained in Article 91 of the EEC Treaty were valid, on account of that factual connection with the existence of customs frontiers, only for the duration of the transitional period.

5 Copies of those three letters were transmitted by the Commission to the Court on 15 November 1983 following the oral procedure, in compliance with an undertaking given by the Commission in reply to a question put to it by the Court at the hearing. By letter of 16 November 1983, one of the applicant's lawyers assured the Court that an applicant had not sent any other letters to the Commission during that period.

6 Copies of those three letters were transmitted by the Commission to the Court on 15 November 1983 following the oral procedure, in compliance with an undertaking given by the Commission in reply to a question put to it by the Court at the hearing. By letter of 16 November 1983, one of the applicant's lawyers assured the Court that an applicant had not sent any other letters to the Commission during that period.

7 Copies of those three letters were transmitted by the Commission to the Court on 15 November 1983 following the oral procedure, in compliance with an undertaking given by the Commission in reply to a question put to it by the Court at the hearing. By letter of 16 November 1983, one of the applicant's lawyers assured the Court that an applicant had not sent any other letters to the Commission during that period.

8 This context is substantially different from the context in which the expression the like product is set in Articles I.1 and II.2 (a) of GATT. See also in this regard Article 2 (12) of the regulation in question.