Opinion of Mr Advocate General da Cruz Vilaça delivered on 21 January 1987

1 Translated from the Portuguese.

2 Official Journal 1982, L 307, p. 1.

3 Official Journal 1985, L 9, p. 1.

4 Official Journal 1985, L 9, p. 13.

5 Official Journal 1985, L 222, p. 1.

6 See, for instance, the judgment of 14 December 1962 in Joined Cases 16 and 17/62 Confédération nationale des producteurs de fruits et légumes v Council [1962] ECR 471 at p. 478. See also the Opinion of Mr Advocate General Lagrange in that case, ECR 481 at p. 484 et seq., and of Mr Advocate General Warner in Case 113/77 Toyo Bearing Company v Council [1979] ECR 1212 at p. 1243 and in Joined Cases 789 and 790/79 Calpak v Commission [1980] ECR 1963 at pp. 1970 and 1971.

7 See the judgment of 13 March 1968 in Case 30/67 Imolese v Council [1968] ECR 115 at p. 121; the judgment of 11 July 1968 in Case 6/68 Zuckerfabrik Watenstedt v Council [1968] ECR 409 at p. 414; the judgments of 16 April 1970 in Case 63/69 Compagnie française commerciale v Commission [1970] ECR 205 at p. 211 and in Case 64/69 Compagnie fiançasse commerciale v Commission [1970] ECR 221 at p. 227; and the judgment of 20 November 1979 in Case 162/78 Wagner v Commission [1979] ECR 3467 at p. 3487.

8 See, for instance, the judgment of 1 April 1965 in Case 40/65 Sgarlata v Commission [1965] ECR 215 at p. 226; and the judgment of 16 March 1978 in Case 123/77 UNICME v Council [1978] ECR 845 at pp. 851 to 853.

9 See the judgment of 5 May 1977 in Case 101/76 Koninklijke Scholten-Honig v Council and Commission [1977] ECR 797 at p. 805; the judgment of 20 November 1979 in Case 162/78 Wagner v Commission [1979] ECR 3467 at pp. 3486 and 3487; and the judgment of 17 June 1980 in joined Cases 789 and 790/79 Calpak v Commission [19801 ECR 1949 at p. 1961.

10 Sec the judgment of 14 December 1962 in Joined Cases 16 and 17/62 Confédération nationale des producteurs de fruits et legumes v Council [1962] ECR 471 at p. 479; and the judgment of 11 July 1968 in Case 6/68 Zuckerfabrik Walenstedt v Council [1968] ECR 409 at p. 415.

11 See the judgment of 14 December 1962 in Producteurs de fruits, supra, at p. 479.

12 Judgment of 11 July 1968 in Case 6/68 Zuckerfabrik Watenstedt [1968] ECR 409 at p. 415; judgment of 5 May 1977 in Case 101/76 Koninklijke Scholten-Honig v Council and Commission [1977] ECR 797 at p. 808; and judgment of 17 June 1980 in Joined Cases 789 and 790/79 Calpak [1980] ECR 1949.

13 That interpretation is supported by, for instance, the judgment of 16 April 1970 in Case 64/69 Companie française commerciale [1970] ECR 1979 at p. 227, paragraph 12 of the decision; the judgment of 18 January 1979 in Joined Cases 103 to 109/78 Société usines de Beauport v Council [1979] ECR 17 at pp. 24 and 25; and the Opinion of Mr Advocate General Warner in Joined Cases 789 and 790/79 Calpak [1980] ECR 1949 at p. 1971.

14 Judgment of 6 October 1982 in Case 307/81 Alusuisse v Council and Commission [1982] ECR 3463 at p. 3473.

15 See the judgment of 16 April 1970 in Case 63/69 Compagnie française commerciale [1970] ECR 205 at p. 211.

16 Judgment of 15 July 1963 in Case 25/62 Plaumann v Commission [1963] ECR 95 at p. 106.

17 Judgment of 15 July 1963 in Plaumann at p. 107.

18 See, for instance, the judgment of 2 July 1964 in Case 1/64 Glticoseries réunies v Commission [1964] ECR 413 at p. 417; and the judgments in Bock and CAM, cited in footnote 19.

19 See the judgment of 17 January 1985 in Case 11/82 Piraiki-Patraiki v Commission [19851 ECR 207 at pp. 242 and 2.

20 Sec the judgment of 1 July 1965 in Joined Cases 106 and 107/63 Toepfer v Commission [1965] ECR 405 at p. 411; judgment of 13 May 1971 in Joined Cases 41 to 44/70 International Fruit Company v Commission [1971] ECR 411 at pp. 422 and 423; judgment of 23 November 1971 in Case 62/70 Bock v Commission [1971] ECR 897 at p. 909; judgment of 18 November 1975 in Case 100/74 CAM v Commission [1975] ECR 1393 at pp. 1402 and 1403; and judgment of 6 March 1979 in Case 92/78 Simmenthal v Commission [1979] ECR 777 at pp. 797 and 798.

21 Sec the judgment referred to in footnote 11 to this Opinion.

22 See the judgments of 16 April 1970 in Case 63/69 Compagnie française commerciale [1970] ECR 205 at p. 211 and in Case 64/69 Compagnie française commerciale [1970] ECR 221 at p. 227.

23 See, for instance, the judgment of 1 July 1965 in Joined Cases 106 and 107/63 Totpfir v Commission [1965] ECR 405 at p. 411; judgment of 10 December 1969 in Joined Cases 10 and 18/68 Eriiknia v Commision [1969] ECR 459 at pp. 480-483; judgment of 16 June 1970 in Case 69/69 Alean v Commision [1970] ECR 385 at p. 394; judgment of 13 May 1971 in Joined Cases 41 to 44/70 International Fruit Company v Commission [1971] ECR 411 at pp. 422 and 423; judgment of 16 March 1978 in Case 123/77 UNICME [1978] ECR 845 at p. 852. See also the pioneering Opinions of Mr Advocate General Roemer in Case 25/62 Plaumann [1963] ECR 95 and of Mr Advocate General Gand in Case 38/64 Getreide-Import Gisellschaft [1965] ECR 203 at pp. 211 and 212.

24 Judgment of 10 December 1969 in Joined Cases 10 and 18/68 Eridania [1969] ECR 459 at p. 481.

25 Judgment of 16 June 1970 in Case 69/69 Alcan v Commission [1970] ECR 385 at p. 394. 126. At the hearing, moreover, the applicants again shifted their ground and

26 Judgment of 13 March 1968 in Case 5/67 Beus v Hauptzollamt München [1968] ECR 83 at p. 95; judgment of 20 June 1973 in Case 80/72 Koninklijke Lastiefabrieken v Hoofdproduktschap voor Akkerbouwprodukten [1973] ECR 635 at p. 652; judgment of 30 November 1978 in Case 87/78 Welding v Hauplzollamt Hamburg [1978] ECR 2457 at p. 2468; judgment of 12 July 1979 in Case 166/78 liaty v Council [1979] ECR 2575 at p. 2597; judgment of 28 October 1982 in Joined Cases 292 and 293/81 Lion el Loirei v FIRS [1982] ECR 3887 at pp. 3909 and 3910; and judgment of 22 January 1986 in Case 250/84 Eridania [1986] ECR 117 at p. 146, paragraphs 37 to 39 of the decision.

27 Judgment of 1 December 1965 in Case 16/65 Schwarze [1965] ECR 877 at p. 888.