Opinion of Mr Advocate General Tesauro delivered on 7 May 1991

1 Original language: kalian.

2 OJ 1977 L 78, p. 17.

3 Official Journal of the French Republic of 23 March 1979.

4 Judgment in Case 427/85 Commission v Germany [1988] ECR 1123, paragraphs 13 and 14.

5 See, for the same view, the Court's judgment in Commission v Germany, cited above, paragraph 43. It should be noted that Germany has intervened in these proceedings in support of the defendant under the misapprehension that the Commission did not accept the argument that the local lawyer must be admitted to practise before the judicial authority in question.

6 Commission v Germany, cited above.

7 Judgment in Case 279/80 Webb [1981] ECR 3305, paragraph 16.

8 Judgment in Commission v Germany, cited above, paragraphs 41 and 42.

9 Judgment in Case 107/83 Ordre des Avocats au Barreau de Paris v Klopf [1984] ECR 2971, paragraph 21; Commission v Germany, cited above, paragraph 28.

10 See the Repon for the Hearing in Case 427/85 Commission v Germany, cited above, p. 1134.

11 It should be noted that in their new version the Rules of Procedure, which are being published in the Official Íournal, also provide for an address for service, but no onger treat an application as inadmissible by way of penalty for noncompliance.

12 Judgment in Commission v Germany, cited above, paragraphs 24 to 26.