Opinion of Mr Advocate General da Cruz Vilaça delivered on 19 November 1987

1 Translated from the Portuguese.

2 Official Journal, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416.

3 Judgment of 21 October 1975 in Case 24/75 Petroni v ONPTS [1975] ECR 1149, at pp. 1160 and 1161, paragraph 21.

4 Judgment of 13 October 1977 in Case 22/77 FNROM v Mura [1977] ECR 1699, at p. 1708, paragraph 15; judgment of 14 March 1978 in Case 98/77 Max Schaap [1978] ECR 707, at p. 714, paragraph 10; judgment of 2 July 1981 in joined Cases 116, 117 and 119 to 121/80 RWP v Celestre [1981] ECR 1737, at p. 1755, paragraph 15; judgment of 13 March 1986 in Case 296/84 Sinatra v FNROM [1986] ECR 1047, paragraph 20.

5 See Sinatra, cited above, paragraph 21.

6 The same procedure was followed by the Italian institution but I assume that in this case the theoretical amount calculated by it was lower than that arrived at under the Belgian legislation.

7 The same view is eloquently expressed in paragraph 5 of the judgment of 19 June 1979 in Case 180/78 Brouwer-Kaune [1979] ECR 2111, at p. 2119; see also the judgments in FNROM v Mura, supra, and Greco (judgment of 13 October 1977 in Case 37/77 [1977] ECR 1711). See also the opinion of Mr Advocate General Lenz in Case 197/85 Stefanutti [1987] ECR. paragraph 19.

8 Official Journal 1974, C 86,20.7.1974.

9 The same view is expressed in the opinion of Mr Advocate General Warner in the /Wroni case, [1975J ECR 1165, and in Decision No 91 of the Administrative Commission, cited earlier.

10 The same view is expressed in Sinatra, cited above, paragraph 23.