Opinion of Mr Advocate General Lenz delivered on 10 January 1990

1 Original language: German.

2 At all events the Court has before it no indication that the Belgian authorities had raised any obļection to the advertisements.

3 Since the judgment of 11 July 1974 in Case 8/74 Dassonmlle[l97*] ECR 837, at p. 852.

4 See in particular the judgments of 16 December 1980 in Case 27/80 Criminal proceedings against Fietje [1980] ECR 3839, at p. 3853, and of 14 July 1988 in Case 298/87 Smanor[i9SS] ECR 4489.

5 See the judgment of 15 December 1982 in Case 286/81 Oosthoek's Uitgeversmaatschappij [1982] ECR 4575, at p. 4587.

6 Judgment of 31 January 1984 in Joined Cases 286/82 and 26/83 Luisi and Carbone v Minutero del Tesauro [1984] ECR 377, at p 401.

7 Judgment of 7 March 1989 in Case 215/87 Schumacheri Haiiplzollaml Frankfurt am Main-Ost[1989] ECR 617

8 Second recital in the preamble to the EEC Treaty.

9 Judgment of 14 July 1981 in Case 155/80 Oebel [19811 ECR 1993.

10 Judgment of 23 November 1989 in Case C-145/88 Torfaen Borough Council v B & Q plc [1989] ECR 3851.

11 See the judgment of 15 December 1982 in Case 286/81 Oosthoek, supra in note 4, at p. 4587.

12 See in particular the judgments of 20 February 1979 in Case 120/79 Rewe v Bundesmonopolverwaltung för Branntwein [1979] ECR 649, at p. 662, of 10 November 1982 in Case 261/81 Rau v Desmedi [1982] ECR 3961, at p. 3972, and of 12 March 1987 in Case 178/84 Commission v Germany [1987] ECR 1227, at p. 1270.

13 OJ 1984, L 250, p. 17.

14 Article 4(1) of the Law on commercial practices of 14 July 1981