Opinion of Advocate General Lenz delivered on 26 February 1992

1 Original language: German.

2 Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana (GURI — Official Gazette of the Italian Republic) No 61 of 14.3.1987.

3 Council Directive of 26 July 1971, OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 682.

4 In the pre-litigation procedure, in the application and in the Report for the Hearing the highest permissible proportion was mentioned as being 50%. The provision, however, plainly mentions 30%.

5 Case C-21/88 Du Pont de Nemours Italiana [1990] ECR I-889, paragraphs 12 and 13, and Case C-351/88 Laboratori Bruneau [1991] ECR I-3641 (Article 30 of the EEC Treaty); and Case C-353/89 Commission v Netherlands [1991] ECR I-4069, at paragraph 25 (Article 59).

6 See previous footnote.

7 Case 352/85 Bond van Adverteerders v Netherlands [1988] ECR 2085, at paragraph 32.

8 Case 30/77 R v Bouchereau [1977] ECR 1999, at paragraph 35.

9 Emphasis added.

10 Cf for instance Case C-3/88 Commission v Italy [1989] ECR 4035, at paragraph 8.

11 In the present context an example might be a criterion favouring small and medium-sized undertakings.

12 In regard to the criteria mentioned in Article 20 of the direcave (technical knowledge or ability on the one hand, additional criteria as mentioned in Article 29 on the other hand) the Court has held that the Member Sutes do have such a margin of discretion for additional criteria, albeit subject to certain restrictions; cf — regarding a condition based on sociopolitical grounds — Case 31/87 Beentjes v Netherlands [1988] ECR 4635, at paragraphs 28, 29, 30 and 36.