Opinion of Mr Advocate General Tesauro delivered on 17 May 1990

1 Original language: Italian.

2 Order of 10 October 1989 in Case 246/89 R Commission v United Kingdom [1989] ECR 3125.

3 Sec for example the order of the Court of 21 August 1981 in Case 232/81 R Agricola Commerciale Olio [1981] ECR 2193, paragraph 9.

4 Among other authorities, see judgments of 9 March 1978 in Case 106/77 Simmenthat [1977] ECR 629, paragraph 14, and of 10 July 1980 in Case 811/79 Ariete [1980] ECR 2545, paragraph 5.

5 Judgments of 16 December 1976 in Case 33/76 Rewe v Landwirtschafikammer Saarland [1976] ECR 1989, paragraph 5, of 16 December 1975 in Case 45/76 Cornel v Produktschap voor Siergewassen [1975] ECR 2043, paragraphs 15 and 16, of 10 July 1980 in Case 811/79 Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato v Ariete [1980] ECR 2545, paragraph 12, of 12 June 1980 in Case 130/79 Express Dairy Foods v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce [1980] ECR 1887, paragraph 12, of 27 March 1980 in Case 61/79 Denkavit italiana [1980] ECR 1205, paragraph 25, of 27 February 1980 in Case 68/79 Just v Ministry of Fiscal Affairs [1980] ECR 501, paragraph 25 and of 9 November 1983 in Case 199/82 San Giorgio [1983] ECR 3595, paragraphs 12 et seq.

6 I would also cite the recent judgment of 21 September 1989 in Case 68/88 Commission v Greece [1989] ECR 2965, in which the Court reaffirms that Article 5 of the Treaty requires Member States to take all measures appropriate to ensure the application and effectiveness of Community law (paragraph 23, provisional translation).

7 On morc than one occasion on which a reference has been made to the Court in the context of an alleged conflia between a national provision (law or administrative act) and Community law, the national court without hesitation granted interim measures as well, which in substance amounted to a provisional suspension of the application of the instrument in question. For example, a stay of execution of an expulsion order from the Netherlands was ordered in the judgment of 17 April 1986 in Case 59/85 Reed [1986] ECR 1283; again, an employment relationship with the University of Venice was ordered to be maintained (judgment of 30 May 1989 in Case 33/88 Allui [1989] ECR 1591); in another case a provisional residence permit was ordered to be issued in Belgium (Case 363/89, pending).

8 An analogous problem to the one before the Court was raised before numerous French courts when a new law on minimum prices for petrol (and also for books) was introduced which was not observed by some distributors who alleged that it was incompatible with Community law. Other traders objected to that attitude and sought interim prohibitory measures on the basis of the new law. Not a few courts granted the orders requested, basing their decision on the presumption of the validity of the law when confronted with a mere suspicion that it was incompatible with the Treaty (for example judgment of the tribunal de grande instance, Le Mans, 11.7.1983, Gazette du Palais, 1984, 1, summary, p. 121); other courts refused to grant the interim measures precisely on the ground that the infringement of the law suspected of being incompatible with Community law was not a trouble manifestement illicite (Cour d'appel, Paris, 4.7.1984, Gazette du Palais, 1984, 2, p. 658, note by Fourgoix; tribunal de grande instance, Pontoise, 22.2.1984, ibid., p. 296; see Berlin, Un trouble manifestement illicite: la lutte contre la vie chère, Gazette du Palais, 1983, doa., p. 419; also Le juge des référés et le droit communautaire, ibid, 1984, doct. 48). The French Court of Cassation has given its formal approval to this second approach (chambre commerciale, 15.5.1985, Gazette du Palais, 1985, 2, panor., pp. 346 and 347), basing itself however on the judgment of the Court of Justice delivered in the meantime to the effect that the contested law was incompatible (judgments of 10 January 1985 in Case 229/83 Leden v Au Bli Vert [19851 ECR 1 and of 29 January 1985 in Casc 231/83 Callet and Another v Ledere [1985] ECR 305). Subsequently, the Court of Cassation, again as a result of a decision by the Court (judgment of 4 May 1988 in Case 30/87 Bodson [1988] ECR 2479), but in more general terms, affirmed that it was for the judge hearing the application for interim relief to verify whether the trouble relied on was manifestly unlawful under the Treaty of Rome (Commercial Chamber, 10.7.1989, Dalloz 1989, p. 243). See also Court of Cassation, 22.4.1986, Dalloz 1986, p. 242.

9 Judgment of 10 July 1980 in Case 826/79 Mirteo [1980] ECR 2559, paragraph 7.

10 See for example the order of 12 December 1968 in Case 27/68 Renkens [1969] ECR 274. See alio the Opinion of Mr Advocate General Capotorti in Joined Cases 24/80 and 97/80 R Commission v France [1980] ECR 1319, at p. 1337. In substantially the same terms are the orders of 8 April 1965 in Case 18/65 R Gutmann v Commission [1966] ECR 135, of 14 December 1982 in Case 260/82 R NSO v Commission [1982] ECR 4371, of 13 December 1984 in Case 269/84 R Fabbro v Commission [1984] ECR 4333, and of 16 March 1988 in Case 44/88 R de Compte [1988] ECR 1669. The necessary link between the effectiveness of judicial protection and interim relief was brought into focus, as is known, by Italian doctrine (Choivenda, Istituzioni di diritto processuale civile, I, Naples, 1933, No 12; also Principi di diritto processuale civile, Naples, 1906, pp. 137 et seq; Calamandrei, Introduzione allo studio sistematico dei provvedimenti cautelari, Padua, 1936) and by German academic legal literature (Hedwig, System des deutschen Zivilprozeßrechts, Leipzig, 1913, II, pp. 22 et seq). The principle that the duration of the proceedings must not cause damage to the party in the right is to be found in a different formulation in a judgment of the German/Polish Mixed Arbitration Tribunal of 29.7.1924 : Par les mesures conservatoires, les tribunaux cherchent á remédier aux lenteurs de la justice, de manière qu'autant que possible l'issue du proces soit la même que s'il pouvait se terminer en un jour. (By means of interim measures the courts seek to make up for the law's delays in such a way that as far as possible the outcome of the proceedings is the same as if they could have been completed in one day) ; Decisions of the Tribunal, V, 455. See also the decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constituüonal Court) of 19.6.1973 commented on in NJW 1973,34, pp. 1491 et seq (Der Sinn dieses besonderen Verfahrens besteht darin, einen effektiven Gerichtsschutz gegenüber Maßnahmen der Exekutive zu sichern and durchzusetzen. ... Das Verfahrensgrundrecht des Art. 19Abs.4bb garantien nicht nur das formelle Recht und die theoretische Möglichkeit, die Gerichte anzurufen, sondern auch die Effektivität des Rechtsschutzes ; der Bürger hat einen substantiellen Anspruch auf eine tatsachlich wirksame gerichtliche Kontrolle (The purpose of this special procedure is to secure the effective protection of the court against measures taken by the executive. ... The procedural fundamental right contained in Anide 19(4)(bb) of the Basic Law guarantees not only the formal right and the theoretical possibility of applying to the courts, but also the effectiveness of legal protection. The citizen has a substantive right to judicial review which is in fan effective). See, finally, Corte Costituzionale No 190 of 28.6.1985 to the effect that the principle must be respected whereby the duration of the proceedings should not occasion damage to the party who is right, the validity of which principle has been demonstrated from the beginning of this century notonly in Italian academic literature (Foro italiano, 1985, I, 1881). On the origins and foundations of interim protection in France, see Debbasch, Procedure administrative contentieuse et procédure civile, Paris, 1962, pp. 300 er seq.

11 Order of 5 August 1983 in Case 118/83 R CMC and Others [1983] ECR 2583, paragraph 37.

12 Bundesverfassungsgericht, 16.10.1977, Schleyer, in Foro italiano, 1978, IV, p. 222; Bundesverfassungsgericht, 19.6.1962, in BVerfGE, Vol. 14, p. 153.

13 Bundesverfassungsgericht, 5.10.1977, BVerfGE, Vol. 46, p. 43.

14 Pretore, Bari, order of 4.2.1978, Foro italiano, 1978, I, 1807; Pretore, La Spezia, order of 29.3.1978, Foro italiano, 1979, I, 285; Pretore, Pisa, order of 30.7.1977, Foro italiano, 1977, I, 2354; Pretore, Pavia, order of 14.3.1977, Riv. giur. lav. 1977, II, 640; Pretore, Voltri, order of 1.9.1977, Riv, giur. Uv. 1977, II, 639; Pretore, La Spezia, order of 23.11.1978, Foro italiano, 1979, I, 1921 et seq.

15 Verde, Considerazioni sul procedimento d'urgenza, in Studi Aminoli, Naples, 1979, pp. 446 et seq; Mortati, Istituzioni di diritto pubblico, 1976, II, p. 1391; Campanile, Procedimento d'urgenza e incidente di legittimità costituzionale. Riv. dir. proc. 1985, pp. 124 et seq; Zagrebelsky, La tutela d'urgenza, in Le garanzie giurisdizionali dei diritti fondamentali, Padua, 1988, pp. 27 et seq; Sandulli, Manuale di diritto amministrativo, Naples, 1984, II, p. 1408.

16 But see, with regard to the permissibility of interim protection pending settlement of jurisdictional questions, Corte costituzionale No 73 of 6.6.1973, foro italiano, 1973, I, 1657; also Corte di Cassazione, Sezioni Unite, 1.12.1978, No 5678, Foro italiano, 1978, I, 2704.

17 Corte costituzionale, 27.12.1974, No 284, Foro italiano, 1975, I, 263.

18 Corte costituzionale, 28.6.1985, No 190, Foro italiano, 1985, I, 1881. See also, for some points of interest, Corte di cassazione, Sez. Unite Civili, 1.12.1978, No 5678, Foro italiano, 1978, I, 2704; Consiglio di Suto, Ad. plen., 14.4.1972, No 5, Foro italiano, 1972, III, 105; idem, 8.10.1982, No 17, Foro italiano, 1983, II, 41.

19 Decision 86-224 DC, 23.1.1987, Journal officiel de la République française of 25.1.1987, p. 925.

20 Judgment of 22 October 1987 in Case 314/85 Foto-Frost v Hauptzotlaml Lübeck-Ost [ 1987] ECR 4199, paragraph 19.

21 Judgment of 7 July 1981 in Case 158/80 Rewe (butter cruises) [1981] ECR 1805.

22 Judgments in Case 45/76 Comet, supra, paragraph 16, in Case 33/76 Rewe, supra, paragraph 15, or 12 June 1980 in Case 130/79 Express Dairy Foods, supra, [1980] ECR 1887, paragraph 12, of 27 March 1980 in Case 61/79 Denkami italiano, supra, [1980] ECR 1205, paragraph 25 and of 10 July 1980 in Case 826/79 Mireco, supra, [1980] ECR 2559, paragraph 13.

23 Judgment of 5 February 1963 in Case 26/62 Van Gend & Loos [1963] ECR 1.