Opinion of Mr Advocate General Tesauro

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. The applicants challenge Council Regulation (EEC) No 1910/88, which suspended the advance fixing of aid for dried fodder for the period from 1 to 7 July 1988.

2. On 28, 29 and 30 June 1988, the applicants submitted applications to the national intervention agency for certificates with advance fixing of the aid in question.

3. By way of preliminary, the Commission objects that the application is inadmissible on the ground that the conditions laid down in the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty are not satisfied.

4. It should also be remembered that the Court, in those cases — those few cases — in which it has been recognized that a measure adopted in the form of a regulation was of individual concern to those who attacked it, has attached particular importance to the fact that, when the regulation was adopted, the persons who were subject to the effects of the measure were identified or at least identifiable.

5. With respect to the present case, it must first of all be pointed out that when the contested regulation was adopted, on 30 June 1988, the addressees of the measure did not constitute a clearly defined circle known to the Commission.

6. The applicants object that the extension of the validity of the regulation so as to suspend applications lodged after 30 June 1988 was a sham.

7. That should be sufficient to indicate that the contested regulation cannot be regarded as a set of decisions against which natural or legal persons are entitled to bring an action under the second paragraph of Article 173.

8. Let me deal now, in limine, with a last point.

9. I therefore propose that the Court declare the application inadmissible and order the applicants to pay the costs.

1 Original language: Italian.

2 OJ L 168,1.7.1988, p.111.

3 OJ L 171, 28.6.1978, p. 1.

4 OJ L 179, 1.7.1978, p. 10.

5 OJ L 210, 1 8.1987, p. 63.

6 See most recently the judgments of 29 June 1989 in Joined Cases 250/86 and 11/87 RAR [1989] ECR 2045, paragraphs 6 to 9 and also of 24 February 1987 in Case 26/86 Deutz und Geldermann [1987] ECR 941, paragraphs 6 to 9 and of 6 October 1982 in Case 307/81 Alusuisse [1982] ECR 3463, paragraphs 7, 8 and 11.

7 Judgment of 13 May 1971 in Joined Cases 41 to 44/70 [1971] ECR 411.

8 Judgment of 18 November 1975 in Casc 100/74 CAM [1975] ECR 1393

9 Judgment of 3 May 1978 in Case 112/77 Tapfer [1978] ECR 1021.

10 A. Barav and G. Vandersanden Contentieux communautaire, Bruylanl, Drusseis, 1977, p 172.

11 M. Waelbroeck: Rev. int. jur. belge, 1971, p. 533 (emphasis added).

12 OJ L 168, 1.7.1988, p. 73.

13 Judgment of 25 March 1982 in Case 45/81 Moksel [1982] ECR1129.