Opinion of Mr Advocate General Lenz delivered on 18 April 1991

1 Original language: German.

2 On the allegation made ai the hearing that there was a breach of Article 5 of the EEC Treaty, see also paragraph 5.

3 Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 of the Council of 29 October 1975 on the common organization of the market in cereals (OJ 1975 L 281, p. 1), as subsequently amended.

4 Judgments in Case C-281/87 Commiuion v Gmct [1989] ECR 4015; Case C-35/88 Commiuion v Crtea [1990] ECR I-3125; and Case C-32/89 Greece v Commiuion [1991] ECR I-1321.

5 On this problem, see the Court's judgment in Case 232/78 Commission v France [1979] ECR 2729, in particular paragraph 3.

6 Judgment in Case 199/85 Commission v Italy [1987] ECR 1039, at paragraph 7.

7 On the problem here dealt with, I would also refer to my Opinions in the following cases: Case 103/84 Commission v Italy [1986] ECR 1759, at 1761; Case 240/86 Commissioni Hellenic Republic [1988] ECR 1835, at 1843; and Case C-247/89 Commission v Portugal [1991] ECR I-3659, at I-3670.

8 See judgment in Case 8/74 Procureur du Roi v Benoit and Gustave Dassonvitle [1974] ECR 837, at paragraph 5.

9 See the judgment in Case 15/79 Groenveld BV v Produktschap voor Vee en Vlees [1979] ECR 3409. With the exception of one case, in which the Commission suspects that KIDEP was able to export a quantity of maize in place of a private trader on tne ground that the corresponding export licence (see footnote 14 below) of that trader had been withdrawn a short time previously, the Commission does not appear to be proceeding on the basis that exports were (systematically) transferred from private traders to KIDEP. In general, it suggests only that KIDEP was not subject to those obstacles.

10 See, for example, the judgments in Case 111/76 Officier van Justitie v Van Den Hazel [1977] ECR 901; in Case 83/78 Pigs Marketing Boardi Redmond [i 97 i] ECR 2347; in Case 124/85 Commission v Greece [1986] ECR 3935; and in Case 272/86 Commission v Greece [1988] ECR 4875.

11 See the above judgments in Case 83/78 Pip Marketing Board v Redmond (at paragraph 57) and in Case C-35/88 Commission v Greece (at paragraph 29).

12 See in this connection the judgments in Cases 83/78 and 272/86, cited in footnote 9; in a more recent judgment in Case C-205/89 Commission v Greece [1991] ECR I-1361, at paragraph 13, the Court left the problem unresolved.

13 See the second paragraph of footnote 8.

14 See the basic judgments in Cases 96/81 and 97/81 Commission v Netherlands [1982] ECR 1791 and 1819, most recently confirmed in the judgment in Case C-244/89 Commission v France [1991] ECR I-163, at paragraph 35.

15 This presumably refers to the disputed endorsement. In reply to a question put by the Court, the Greek Government stated, without being contradicted, that exports required no administrative authorization other than endorsement of the export declaration and invoice form.

16 For a similar case, see the judgment in Case 272/86 (cited above at footnote 9), at paragraph 21.

17 See footnote 3 above: at paragraph 20.

18 See footnote 3 above: at paragraph 13 et seq.

19 See the judgments in Case C-35/88, cited above, at paragraphs 22 to 25, and in Case C-32/89, also cited above, at paragraphs 15 and 16.

20 See the uncontested submissions made on page 10 of the application, where it is pointed out that KIDEP is engaged in providing the market with subsidized maize.

21 To the same end, see the article of 6 November 1985 in the newspaper / Vradyni produced by the Commission.

22 This has, however, already been mentioned in lhe statement of defence.