Opinion of Mr Advocate General VerLoren van Themaat delivered on 20 June 1984

1 Translated from the Dutch.

2 At the hearing the Commission cited as a second example Article 10 of Commission Regulation No 798 of 31 March 1980 (Official Journal 1980, L 87, p. 42). In that case however reference is made expressly to the refund of the whole or pan of a sum equal to the deposit.

3 According to the judgment, the fraud was much more serious than appears from the Repon for the Hearing, which was based on the order referring the case to the Court.

4 Bundesverfassungsgericht 37, p. 288.

5 The same view is, in my opinion, expressed in paragraph 6 of the judgment in Case 26/70 Ein/uhrund Vorratsstclle v Henck [ 1970] ECR 1183.

6 Cf. paragraph 2 of the Court's answer to the questions raised in Case 240/78, [1979] ECR 2152.

7 The observation seems to tne necessary now in the light of the judgments given by the Court since the judgment in Case 240/78. Since in the cases on the policy in relation to fines in the steel industry the Court has held that the Commission is entitled to proceed on the basis of fixed amounts even in respect of genuine administrative penalties such as those expressly provided for in the Treaties, that applies a fortiori by reason of their nature to deposits such as those in issue here.

8 Cf. the third sentence of paragraph 11 (quoted above) of the judgment in Case 14/68.