Opinion of Mr Advocate General Darmon delivered on 15 March 1991

1 Original language: French.

2 OJ 1983 L 289, p. 38.

3 OJ 1983 L 289, p. 1.

4 Annex 4 to the application.

5 Annex 5 to the application.

6 Annex 12 to the application.

7 Case 18/57 Nold KG v High Authońty [1959] ECR 41.

8 Application, p. 9.

9 Rejoinder, paragraph 15.

10 Defence, paragraph 14.

11 Case 32/86 SISMA v Commission [1987] ECR 1645 paragraph 8 referring to Case 8/83 Bertolt v Commission [1984] ECR 1649; my emphasis.

12 Case 185/83 University of Groningen v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen [1984] ECR 3623, paragraph 38; my emphasis.

13 See to that effect: G. Le Tallec and C. D. Ehlermann in La Motivation des Actes det Communautés Européennes, RMC, 1966, p. 179 et seq, 179 to 182; C. Hen in La Motivation des Actes des Institutions Communautaires, CDE, 1977, No 1, p. 49 et seq, 74 to 78.

14 See the rejoinder, paragraph 15.

15 In particular, Case 206/85 Beiten v Commission [1987] ECR 5301, paragraph 13.

16 Case C-213/87 Gemeente Amsterdam v Commission [1990] ECR I-221.

17 See footnote 11 above.

18 Paragraph 28.

19 Paragraph 3 of this Opinion.

20 OJ 1983 L 377, p. 1.

21 Article 5(4) of Regulation No 2950/83.

22 Ibid.

23 Defence, paragraph 15.

24 Rejoinder, paragraph 12.

25 Judgment in Case 310/81 [1984] ECR 1341, paragraph 15.

26 Sec footnote II, ibid, paragraph 39.

27 Case 34/62 Germany v Commission [1963] ECR 131 at 143; Case 213/87, cited above, paragraph 27.

28 Heading 14-1 of the application for the balance; Annex HI to the defence.

29 Heading 15-1 of the application for approval; Annex II to the defence.

30 Sec Case 185/83, footnote II, paragraph 38 of the judgment.

31 Defence, paragraph 27.

32 Paragraph 3 of this Opinion.

33 Point 14.1 of the application for the balance referred to at Annex III to the defence.

34 Paragraph 29 of the defence.

35 Point 15.) of che origina] application referred to at Annex II to the defence.

36 Reply, p. 9.

37 Point 15.3 of the application for approval.

38 See point 15.3a of the original application.

39 Point 15.3 f and h of the original application.

40 Six monitors occupied for five months of 22 days.

41 Point 15.3 of the application for approval.

42 Reply, p. 11.

43 Point 15.3e of the original application.

44 Amounting to a total of ESC 2912955.

45 Point 15.3k of the original application.

46 5668369 — (8000 x 1 x 65), the daily costs claimed being ESC 8000 and the occupation of 10 rooms for 65 days.

47 Point 15.3k of the original application.

48 277 (trainees) x 8 (weeks) x 2500 (ESC).

49 Point 14.6 of the application for the balance.

50 Point 15.7 of the original application.

51 Point 14.8 of the application for the balance.

52 Point 15.8 of the application for approval.

53 Paragraph 22 of the rejoinder and developed at the hearing.

54 Rejoinder, paragraph 26.

55 Judgment in Case 84/85 United Kingdom v Commisiion [1987] ECR 3765, paragraph 23.

56 See footnote 20 above.

57 Point 14.3 of the application for the balance.

58 Defence, paragraph 30.

59 Defence, p. 6.

60 Defence, paragraph 32.

61 Point 14.2 of the application for the balance; Commission's allegations at paragraph 30 of the defence.

62 Reply, under Law, paragraph 10.

63 See Annex 11 to the application.

64 Reply under Law, paragraph 12.

65 Article 7.

66 The term used in lhe rejoinder, p. 4.

67 Annex 3 to the application.