Opinion of Mr Advocate General VerLoren van Themaat DELIVERED ON 22 MAY 1984

1 Translated from the Dutch.

2 In relation to the difficulty of identifying those decisions, see Part 3.3 of this Opinion. I have added the plural in brackets as in fact two decisions are involved.

3 The aforesaid distinction is clearly set out in Article 8 et seq. of the Financial Regulation of 17 March 1981 applicable to the Fifth European Development Fund (annexed to the Commission's Objection).

4 However, in this connection I also refer to the comments made by Mr Advocate General Reischl at pages 2242 to 2244 of his Opinion in Case 56/77 (cited above), with which I concur. They give further reasons why the applicant cannot in any case obtain the annulment of the contracts challenged by it.