Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mischo delivered on 28 November 1989

1 Original language: French.

2 P. 2 in the order for reference.

3 See, in that connection, Waelbroeck, Louis, Vignes, Dewost and Vandersanden: Le droit de la Communauté économique européenne. Vol. 10, Editions de l'université de Bruxelles, 1983, p. 179 and Joliét: Le droit institutionnel des Communautés européennes, le contentieux. Faculty of Law, Economies and Social Sciences of Liège, 1981, p. 167.

4 Judgment of 23 April 1986 in Case 294/83 Parti écologiste Les Vertsv European Parliament [1986] ECR 1339.

5 Judgment of 11 November 1981 in Case 60/81 IBM v Commission [1981] ECR 2639.

6 Judgment of 4 October 1983 in Case 191/82 Fediol v Commission [1983] ECR 2913.

7 Judgment of 22 October 1987 in Case 314/85 Foto-Frost v Hauptzollamt Lübeck-Ost [1987] ECR 4199.

8 Judgment of 16 January 1974 in Case 166/73 Rheinmühlen-Düsseldorf v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel [1974] ECR 33.

9 See also the Opinion delivered by Advocate General Sir Gordon Slynn on 27 March 1984 in Case 36/83 Mabanafi y Hauptzollamt Emmerich [1984] ECR 2528, at p. 2530: It is, in my opinion, clear that, if the validity of an act is in Question, the first task almost inevitably is to ask what is the nature of the act in question. That involves, where the act is in a document, interpreting the words used. If the compatibility of an act of the High Authority with provisions of the Treaty is in question, that inexorably involves the Court in directing itself as to the proper meaning of the Treaty.

10 Judgment of 21 March 1985 in Case 172/84 Celestri v Ministry of Finance [1985] ECR 963.

11 See, in particular, Wohlfahrt, in Grabitz: Kommentar zum EWG-Vertrag, at paragraph 13 on Article 177: If the European Court of Justice is entitled to give a preliminary ruling on the validity of a legal provision, which always presupposes the interpretation of that provision, it must, a fortiori, be entitled to interpret such a provision, if requested to do so by a national court.

12 Judgment of 16 December 1960 in Case 6/60 Humblet v Belgium [1960] ECR 559

13 Judgment of 21 January 1965 in Case 108/63 Merlini v High Authority [1965] ECR 1

14 Case 152/84 [1986] ECR 723, paragraph 47.

15 Judgments of 20 September 1988 in Case 31/87 Gebroedcn Beentjes v Stale of lhe Netherlands [1988] ECR 4635, and of 22 June 1989 in Case 103/88 Fratelli Costanzo v Comune di Milano [1989 ] ECR 1839

16 That is to say, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the recommendation

17 Sec in particular the judgment of 14 January 1987 in Case 278/84 Germany v Commission [1987) ECR 1, paragraph 36.