Opinion of Mr Advocate General Darmon

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. This case, in which the Court of Justice has jurisdiction by virtue of an arbitration clause, is concerned with the interpretation of a scientific research contract concluded under Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2935/79 of 20 December 1979 continuing the measures referred to in Regulation (EEC) No 723/78 on market research measures within the Community in respect of milk and milk products.

2. The applicant challenges that decision refusing to allow part of the leasing costs to be charged to the contract primarily on the ground that the parties originally agreed to classify the cost of the instruments in question under the heading of costs of material (Sachkosten), with the result that such costs were subject to the general rule embodied in Clause 1 (1) of the contract in conjunction with Clause 3 (2), which provides for the reimbursement of up to 75 % of the stipulated expenditure incurred during the research work. The applicant seeks a declaration that it is entitled to the reimbursement of DM 35147.69, representing 75% of the total leasing costs less the sum of DM 11982.63 which it has already accepted.

3. In the Commission's view, under the terms of the contract the only system of defraying expenditure is that provided for by Clause 5 (3). The question of leasing costs arose for the first time in this case; subsequently, it was expressly decided to reimburse 20% of those costs.

4. The solution of the dispute before the Court does not in my view depend on the classification of the instruments in question under one or other of the five headings specified in Clause 1 (1) of the contract.

5. Accordingly, I suggest that the Court should:

1 Translated from the French.

2 Official Journal L 334, 28.12.1979, p. 13.