Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mischo delivered on 26 May 1988

1 Translated from the French.

2 In order to avoid complications, I shall refer hereinafter only to the Articles of the EEC Treaty and not to the corresponding articles of the EAEC Treaty.

3 [1985] ECR 1528, paragraph 3.2.2.2. et leq.

4 See judgment of the Court of 3 July 1986 in Case 34/86 Council v European Parliament [1986] ECR 2155, paragraph 8.

5 Case 294/83 Parti écologiste Les Verts v European Parliament [1986] ECR 1339, in particular at paragraph 24.

6 Judgment of 22 May 1985 in Case 13/83 Parliament v Council [1985] ECR 1513, paragraph 36 of the decision.

7 Case 34/86 Council v European Parliament supra, in particular paragraph 12 of the decision.

8 See the judgment of 23 April 1986, Les Verts, cited above, in particular paragraph 25 of the decision.

9 See, to that effect, Hans-Wolfram Daig in Von der Groebert et al. Volume 2, p. 367.

10 See to that effect the judgment of the Court of 15 March 1984 in Case 64/82 Tratkx v Commission [1984] ECR 1359, paragraphs 11 and 12. Advocate General Sir Gordon Slynn is more clearly inclined to the view that it was question of substance [1984] ECR 1383.

11 Official Journal 1985, L 128, p. 15.

12 Communication by the Commission of 15 February 1987 entitled ‘Making a success of the Single European Act: a new frontier for Europe.

13 Report by the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the financing of the Community budget, dated 27 February 1987.

14 Proposal for a Council decision on the system of the Communities' own resources (COM(87) 420 final), published in Official Journal 1987, C 241, p. 3.

15 Resolution on the future financing of the European Community (Official Journal 1987, C 345, p. 43).

16 Official Journal 1988, C 80, p. 14.

17 See the statement made by the President in office of the Council (Budget) to the European Parliament on 13 October 1987.

18 Council decision of 21 April 1970 on the replacement of financial contributions from Member States by the Communities' own resources (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1970 (I), p. 224).

19 Official Journal 1987, L 169.

20 Opinion of 2 June 1986 [1986] ECR 2181.

21 Case 13/83 European Parliament v Council [1985] ECR 1513, at p. 1596.

22 Judgment of 23 April 1956 in Joined Cases 7 and 9/54 Industries sidérurgiques luxembourgeoises v High Authority [1954-56] ECR 175; judgment of 2 July 1964 in Case 103/63 Rhenania and Others v Commission [1964] ECR 425; judgment of 8 July 1970 in Case 75/69 Hake v Commission [1970] ECR 535, paragraph 2.

23 Sec for example the judgment of 17 June 1987 in Case 154/85 Commission v Italy [1987] ECR 2717, paragraph 6.

24 See judgment of 1 June 1961 in Joined Cases 5, 7 and 8/60 Meroni v High Authority [1961] ECR 107.

25 See the order of 16 March 1988 in Case 92/86 B&S Chemie Handeln Commission [1988] not published, and the order of 11 October 1983 in Case 75/83 Ferriere San Carlo v Commission [1983] ECR 3123, paragraph 7.

26 See the order of 11 November 1985 in Case 82/85 Eurasian Corporation v Commission [1985] ECR 3603, paragraph 12. The Court even added that the mere possibility of a subsequent action for damages is not a factor which supports the conclusion that the action for annulment still retains its purpose. See also the judgment of 13 December 1984 in Case 14/84 Hansen, née Meyer v Economic and Social Committee [1984] ECR 4317, paragraph 11.

27 See, to that effect, in particular: Waelkroek, in Mégret, Waelbroeck, Louis, Vignes, and Devost: Le Droit de la Communauté économique européenne Vol. 10, Part 1, An. 175, paragraph 10; Wohlfahrt, in Grabitz: Kommentar zum EWG-Vertrag Art. 175, paragraph 36; Daig, in Groeben, Boeckh, Thiesing and Ehlermann: Kommentar zum EWG-Vertrag Part 2, Art. 175, paragraph 33.