Opinion of Mr Advocate General VerLoren van Themaat delivered on 9 May 1985

1 Translated from the Dutch.

2 At the hearing the appellants suggested the following, somewhat simplified, answer: Community law does not preclude the existence of a rule of national law under which the person providing a processing security as provided for in Article 12 of Regulation No 232/75 may, in proceedings for the enforcement of the security, plead by way of defence circumstances beyond his control consisting in particular in actions or omissions on the paa of the authorities implementing Community agricultural policy if it can be shown that the person providing the security may have acted on the justified belief that the authorities had performed their duties under the relevant provisions in the usual and proper manner for an authority acting with the normal degree of care.

3 More generally, the Schutznorm doctrine (which is not easy to translate into Dutch or French) is a test for deciding whether a person may bring an action in ton against a private person or public body which acts in breach of a legal provision, the decisive test being whether the provision must also be regarded as protecting his own interests.

4 In particular, the appellants' argument about Article 12 of Directive No 76/308/EEC (Official Journal 1976, L 73, p. 18) might perhaps merit consideration in a different factual context.

5 On some points I have added my own clarification in parentheses.

6 Willi regard to this view, I refer to my opinion in Case 124/83 in which I stated that it appears correct only in so far as the first buyer's right of action against his own buyers is not yet time-barred. Beyond that limit, it will in practice be probably very difficult to obtain a bank guarantee or other security.