Opinion of Mr Advocate General Van Gerven delivered on 8 November 1989

1 Original language: French.

2 Council Regulation (EEC) No 864/87 of 23 March 1987 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on importi of standardized multi-phase electric motors having an output of more than 0.75 kW but not more than 75 kW, originating in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Poland and the Soviet Union, and definitively collecting the amounts secured as provisional duties (OJ 1987 L 83, p. 1).

3 Opinions in Joined Cases C-304/86 and C-185/87 Enitalv Commission and Council, [1990) ECR I-2939, in Joined Cases C-305/86 and C-160/87 Neotype Techmashexport v Commission and Council, [1990] ECR I-2945, in Joined Cases C-320/86 and C-188/87 Slanko Francei Commission and Council [1990] ECR I-3013 and in Case C-157/87 Electroimpex and Others v Council[1990] ECR I-3021.

4 The basic regulation referred to is Council Regulation (EEC) No 2176/84 of 23 July 1984 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community (OJ 1985 L 201, p. 1). That regulation has in the mean time been replaced by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 (OJ 1988 L 209, p. 1).

5 See inter alia the judgment in Case 246/87 Continentale Produkten-Gesellschafi Erhardt-Renken v Hauptzollamt München-West [1989] ECR 1151.

6 Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3019/86 of 30 September 1986 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of standardized multi-phase electric motors having an output of more than 0.75 1057 but not more than 75 kW, originating in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Romania and the Soviet Union (OJ L 280, p. 68).

7 Order in Case 279/86 Sermu v Commission [1987] ECR 3109.

8 See judgment in Joined Cases 50 to 58/82 Administrateur des affaires maritimes, Bayonne v Dorca Manna [1982] ECR 3949, at p. 3959. In that case the Court refused to examine the validity of a Community measure from the point of view of its compliance with the general principles of law. It was, however, clear that the submission made did not fall within the context of the question raised, which cannot be argued in the present case.

9 Commission Regulation (EEC) No 724/82 of 30 March 1982 (OJ 1982 L 85, p. 9), Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/82 of 28 July 1982 (OJ 1982 L 220, p. 36) and Commission Decision 84/189/EEC of 2 Aprii 1984 (OJ 1984 L 95, p. 28).

10 See in particular the 11th recital to Council Regulation No 2075/82 of 28 July 1982.

11 Judgment in Case 258/84 Nippon Seiko v Council [1987] ECR 1923, paragraph 34.

12 Sec inter alia the judgment in Case 198/87 Kerzmann v Court of Auditors [1989] ECR 2083 (summary of the judgment, paragraph 2).

13 See inter alia the judgment in Case 255/84 Nachi Fujikoshi v Council [1987] ECR 1861, paragraph 39.

14 See the judgments in Case 14/74 Norddeutsches Vieh- und Fleischkontor v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Ionas [1974] ECR 899, in Case 23/79 Gefliigetschlachterei Freystadt v Haupt- zotlamt Hamburg-Jonas [1979] ECR 2789 and in Case 12/88 Schäfer Shop v Minister van Economische Zaken [1989] ECR 2937.