Opinion of Mr Advocate General da Cruz Vilaça delivered on 16 September 1987

1 Translated from the Portuguese.

2 Official Journal, English Special Edition 1970 (I), p. 218.

3 Official Journal, English Special Edition 1970 (III), p. 707.

4 Official Journal, L 20, 28.1.1976, pp. 1 and 19.

5 Official Journal, L 379, 31.12.1981, p. 1.

6 Judgment of 5 May 1981 in Case 804/79 Commission v United Kingdom [1981] ECR 1045, at p. 1072, paragraph 17.

7 Official Journal, L 298, 7.11.1980, p. 38.

8 European Parliament, Resolution of 17 September 1981 (Official Journal, C 260, 12.10.1981).

9 Official Journal, L 24, 27.1.1983, p. 1.

10 Official Journal, L 24, 27.1.1983, p. 30.

11 [1982] ECR 2545, it p. 2573, paragraph 6.

12 The emphasis is mine.

13 See supra, paragraph 12, and infra, paragraphs 42 and 43.

14 Judgment of 5 May 1981 in Case 804/79 Commission v United Kingdom [1981] ECR 1045, at p. 1072, paragraph 17.

15 Case 804/79, op. cit., paragraphs 18 and 20.

16 Case 804/79, op. cit., paragraphs 23 and 31.

17 Judgment of 2 June 1981 in Case 124/80 Officier van Justitie v Van Dam [1981] ECR 1447; judgment of 16 December 1981 in Case 269/80 Regina v Tymen [1981] ECR 3079; judgment of 10 February 1982 in Case 21/81 Openbaar Ministerie v Bout [1982] ECR 381.

18 Case 269/80, op. cit., paragraphs 10 and 11.

19 Official Journal, L 317, 12.12.1979, p. 1.

20 Judgment of 9 July 1981 in Case 169/80 Administration des douanes v Gondrand frères [1981] ECR 1931, at p. 1942, paragraph 17; judgment of 22 February 1984 in Case 70/83 Kloppenburg v Finanzamt Leer [1984] ECR 1075, at p. 1086, paragraph 11.

21 Judgment of 14 July 1976 in Joined Cases 3, 4 and 6/76 Kramer [1976] ECR 1279.

22 Case 11/76 Netherlands v Commission [1979] ECR 245 and Íoined Cases 15 and 16/76 France v Commission [1979] ECR 321.

23 Case 55/83 Italy v Commission [1985] ECR 683.

24 Official Journal, L 51, 20.2.1987, p. 3.

25 Judgment of 7 February 1979 in Joined Cases 15 and 16/76 France v Commission [1979] ECR 321, at p. 337; judgment of 14 January 1981 in Case 819/79 Germany v Commission [1981] ECR 21, at p. 34.

26 Sec, for example, Gondrand frères, op. cit., paragraph 17, and Kloppenburg, op. cit., paragraph 11. In tne latter there appear the following words: ... it is necessary to emphasize, as the Court has already done on several occasions, that Community legislation must be unequivocal and its application must be predictable for those who are subject to it. And in its judgment of 10 July 1980 in Case 32/79 the Court particularly emphasized— in another context, admittedly, but in terms wnich leave no room for ambiguity — that the requirement of legal clarity is indeed imperative in a sector in which any uncertainty may well lead to incidents and the application of particularly serious sanctions([1980] ECR 2403, paragraph 46).

27 Judgment of 27 January 1981 in Case 1251/79 Italy v Commission [1981] ECR 205, at pp. 221 and 222.

28 Luxembourgv Commission judgment of 12 July 1984 [1984] ECR 2931.

29 Ireland argued that Council Regulation No 1865/82 of 28 June 1982 (Official Journal, L 206, 14.7.1982, p. 1) suspended the application of Articles 13 and 14 of Regulation No 3796/81 ; but that fact did not alter the situation, of the arguments which might be based on the existence of the last-mentioned regulation as regards 1982. It did not affect Article 26 (2), and did not suspend its application, so that from 1 June 1982 the rule contained in that Article applied to the provisions in Regulation No 3796/81 which were not suspended by Regulation No 1865/82 (that is to say, Articles 8 and 16 to 18) and, if necessary, to Article 11 of Regulation No 100/76 itself, which Regulation No 1865/85 reintroduced with effect from 31 December 1982.