Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mischo delivered on 23 September 1986

1 Translated from the French.

2 That judgment deals with Regulation No 1380/75, of which Articles 14, 15 and 16 correspond, with slight differences in wording, to Article 17 (1), (2) and (3) of Regulation No 1371/81.

3 On a number of identical occasions in the recent past the Court has used two other substantially identical formulations to define the concept of force majeure: ... apart from the special features of the specific areas in which it is used, the concept of force majeure essentially covers unusual circumstances which make it impossible for the relevant action to be carried out. Even though it does not presuppose absolute impossibility, it nevertheless requires abnormal difficulties, independent of the will of the person concerned and apparently inevitable even if all due care is taken (see judgments of 9 February 1984, Case 284/82 Busseniv Commission [1984] ECR 557; 30 May 1984, Case 224/83 Ferriera Vittoria v Commission [1984] ECR 2349; 12 July 1984, Case 209/83 Ferriera Valsabbia v Commission [1984] ECR 3089). The other formulation is: ... recognition of circumstances of force majeure presupposes that the external cause relied on by individuals has consequences which are inexorable and inevitable to the point of making it objectively impossible for the persons concerned to comply with their obligations (judgments of 18 March 1980, Joined Cases 154/78 et al Valsabbia and Others v Commission [1980] ECR 907; 13 November 1984, Joined Cases 98 and 230/83 Van Cend & Loos v Commission [1984] ECR 3763).