Opinion of Mr Advocate General Tesauro delivered on 23 January 1991

1 Originai language: Italian.

2 Sec Annex II to lhe report of che Legal Affairs Committee (Doc I-457/80).

3 See the resolution on the harmonization of export aid systems adopted by the European Parliament on 15 June 1977 (OJ 1977 C 163. p 42) and the Couste repon (Doc. 129/77)

4 See the resolution on the seventh report of the Commission of the European Communities on competition policy adopted by the European Parliament on 13 October 1978 (OJ 1978 C 261, p. 48) and the Damseaux report (Doc. 334/78)

5 On the subsidiary nature of a claim for damages in relation to national remedies (at least) where the Community measure has given rise to national implementing measures, see J. Rideau and J. L. Charrier, Code des Procedures Européennes, Paris, 1990, pp. 185—186; R. /oliet, Le Droit Institutionnel des Communautés Européennes, Le Contentieux, Liège, 1986, p. 250 et seq; M. Waelbroeck, in Megret, Le Droit de la Communauté Economique Européenne, vol. 10, pan 1, pp. 276-281.

6 Sec R Joliét, op cit., p. 255 cl seq

7 Judgment in Case 90/78 Granaria v Council and Commtiuon, [1979] ECR 1081. After citing the case-law at issue Advocate General Capotorti pointed out significantly thatIn all the judgments cited the Court accepted the admissibility of the actions without objecting that internal remedies must first be exhausted That is explained, in my opinion, by the fact that they were cases in which, even if the applicants had succeeded in convincing the national court of the illegality of the Community measures which had caused them damage, they still could not have obtained from the national administration the benefit to which they claimed to be entitled without the pnor intervention of the Community legislature. On the other hand, if the claim could be satisfied at the national level the Court has rejected, as inadmissible, the action for damages under Article 215.

8 See M. Waelbroeck, op. cit., p. 281.

9 See the judgments in Joined Cases 83 and 94/76, 4, 15 and 40/77 HNLi Council and Commission [19781 ECR 1209; Case 238/78 Ireks-Arkady v Council ana Commission [1979) ECR 2955; Joined Cases 241, 242 and 245-250/78 DGVv Council and Commission [19791 ECR 3017; Joined Cases 261 and 262/78 Interludi Stärke-Chemie v Council and Commission [1979] ECR 3045; Joined Cases 116 and 124/77 Amylum v Council and Commission [1979] ECR 3497; Joined Cases 197 to 200, 243, 245 and 247/80 Ludwigsba/ener Walzmühle v Council and Commission [1981] ECR 3211; Case 59/83 Biovilac v EEC [1984] ECR 4057; Joined Cases 194 to 206/83 Asteris v Commission [1985] ECR 2815; Case 20/88 Roquelia Frères v Commission [1989] ECR 1553 and Case 152/88 Sofiimporti Commission[1990] ECR I-2477.