Opinion of Mr Advocate General Van Gerven delivered on 2 May 1990

1 Original language: Dutch.

2 Regulation of 18 September 1987 on the issue of import licences for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal (OJ 1987 L 268, p. 59).

3 Regulation of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in beef and veal (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 187).

4 Regulation of 20 December 1979 opening a Community tariff quota for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal falling within subheadings 02.01 A II (a) and 02.01 A II (b) of the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1979 L 336, p. 5).

5 Regulation of 16 December 1986 opening a Community tariff quota for high-quality, fresh, chilledor frozen beef and veal falling within subheadings 02.01 A II (a) and 02.01 A II (b) of the Common Customs Tariff (1987) (OJ 1986 L 365, p. 2).

6 Regulation of 21 December 1979 laying down detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements provided for by Regulations (EEC) Nos 2957/79 and 2958/79 in the beef and veal sector (OJ 1979 L 336, p. 37).

7 Regulation of 4 September 1980 on special detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences in the beef and veal sector (OJ 1980 L 241, p. 5).

8 See footnote 2 above.

9 See footnote 3 above.

10 Regulation of 23 December 1982 amending for the third time Regulation (EEC) No 263/81 laying down detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements provided for by Regulations (EEC) Nos 217/81 and 218/81 in the beef and veal sector, and amending for the sixth time Regulation No 2377/80 (OJ 1982 L 373, p. 59).

11 Regulation of 17 November 1987 amending Regulations (EEC) Nos 2973/79 and 2377/80 as regards certain beef and veal import and export arrangements (OJ 1987 L 327, p. 7).

12 Anide 7 of this regulation referred to Article l(l)(d) of the same regulation, in which the quota for Hilton beef is allocated within the total quota for 1980. In 1987, the year at issue here. Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3985/86 also referred to Article l(l)id) of the same regulation.

13 It is not disputed between the parties that at the beginning of the 1980s the quantities applied for were insufficient, so that the quotas were not fully used.

14 Since Regulation No 3434/87, cited in footnote 10 above.

15 There is therefore a return to quarterly management.

16 Article 12 concerns the special import arrangements referred to in Regulation No 2972/79.

17 With effect from 1 January 1988 only the last sentence of Article 15(6)(d) was amended; it concerns the situation in which not enough licences are requested; our problem concerns too many applications.

18 See footnote 4 above.

19 Regulation of 23 December 1986 laying down detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements provided for by Council Regulations Nos 3927/86 and 3928/86 in the beef and veal sectors (OJ 1986 L 370, p. 37).

20 For the official description, see Article l(l)(d); both Weddel and the Netherlands Government use the term Hilton beef.

21 Regulation of 20 February 1987 on the issue of import licences for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal (OJ 1987 L 52, p. 12).

22 In the Dutch version, the word procentueel (up to a certain percentage) appears; in the eight other language versions, the word used is proportionally.

23 Regulation concerning the quantity of high-quality beef and veal that may be imported from the United States of America and from Canada under the arrangements laid down in Council Regulation No 3928/86 (OJ 1987 L 241, p. 6).

24 See footnote 20 above.

25 It is clear from the documents before the Court that the Commission was referring here to the words underlined hereinafter in Article 1 of the regulation cited, which provided for a fresh period for applications to be submitted (see point 6 above) : licence applications can be submitted in accordance with Article 12 ... during the first 10 days of September...for a total quantity of 4617 of beef and veal originating in and imponed from the United States of America or from Canada.

26 See point 17 below.

27 Protest of 30 September 1987, produced at the Court's request.

28 Judgment in Case 45/81 Moksel v Commission (1982) ECK 1129

29 Judgment in Case 147/83 Binderer v Commission [1985] ECR 257.

30 Judgment in Case 26/86 Deutz v Council [ 1987) ECR 941

31 Judgment in Joined Cases 41 to 44/70 International Fruit Company and Others v Commission [1971] ECR 41.

32 Judgment in Case C-244/88 Utinei cooperativei de déshydratation du Vexin v Commission [1989] ECR 3811.

33 Paragraph 21 of the judgment in the International Fruit Company case. See also the earlier judgment of 14 December 1962 in Joined Cases 16 and 17/62 Confédération nationale dei produits de fruits et légumes and Others v Council [1962] EĆR 4071, and in particular the Opinion of Mr Advocate General Lagrange, p. 481, at p. 484, where he refers to a collective decision which is in reality merely a series of individual decisions.

34 Paragraphs 17 and 18.

35 Judgment in Deutz, paragraph 8.

36 See the judgment in Usines coopératives de déshydratation du Vexin, paragraph 10.

37 This point is emphasized in paragraph 12 of the judgment in Usines coopératives de déshydratation du Vexin and is also clearly expressed as a ground for inadmissibility in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the judgment in Moksel.

38 Paragraph 13 (emphasis added).

39 See footnote 20 above.

40 See footnote 6 above.

41 See footnote 4 above.

42 See footnote 6 above.

43 See footnote 2 above.

44 See footnote 10 above.

45 See footnote 6 above.

46 See footnote 22 above.

47 See the reference in footnote 24.

48 In paragraph 11 of its judgment in Case 188/82 Thyssen AG v Commission [1983] LCR 3731, the Court stated in relation to an argument based on direct contact between Commission officials and the applicant as follows The argument concerning the promise allegedly made by certain Commission officials must also be rejected, since no official can give a valid undertaking not to apply Community law No legitimate expectation can therefore have been aroused by such a promise, even if one was made.

49 As regards the requirement of good faith in the case of a person relying on legitímate expectation, reference may be made to the judgment of the Court in Joined Cases 42 and 49/59 Snupat v High Authority [1961] ECR 53, at p. 87.

50 See footnote 6 above.

51 See footnote 9 above.

52 Case 27/77 Cargill v Office national interprofessionel del céréales [1977] ECR 1535, paragraph 19.

53 Case 87/78 Welding v Hauplzollamt Hamburg-Waltershof [1978] ECR 2457, paragraph 8.

54 See footnote 22 above.