Opinion of Mr Advocate General Lenz delivered on 14 November 1990

1 Original language: German.

2 Judgment in Case C-87/89 Sonito v Commission [1990] ECR I-1981

3 Council Regulation (EEC) No 989/84 of 31 March 1984, OJ 1984 L 103, p. 19

4 For the 1984/85 marketing year by Regulation No 1925/84 of 5 July 1984 (OJ 1984 L 179, p. 15); for the 1985/86 marketing year by Regulation No 2222/85 of 31 July 1985 (OJ 1985 L 205, p. 16); for the 1986/87 marketing year by Regulation No 2077/86 of 30 June 1986 (OJ 1986 L 179, p. 11); for the 1987/88 marketing year by Regulation No 2160/87 of 22 July 1987 (OJ 1987 L 202, p. 32).

5 The third recital is worded as follows:Whereas, given the nature of the market in processed tomato products, on the one hand, and of dried grapes, on the other hand, a reduction, as the case may be, of the aid or in the minimum price to be paid to the producer, during the following marketing year, depending on the extent to which the thresholds have been exceeded, is the most appropriate measure.

6 Judgments in Case 250/84 Eridania v Casta conguaglio zucchero [1986] ECR 117, paragraph 37; Case 55/87 Moksel v Bundesanstalt für landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung [1988] ECR 3845, paragraph 23; Case 167/88 AGPB v OMIC [1989] ECR 1653, paragraph 34; Case C-156/87 Gestetner v Commission and Council [1990] ECR I-781, paragraph 69; Case C-27/89 Scarpe v OW/C [1990] ECR I-1701, paragraph 27; Joined Cases C-304/86 and C-185/87 Enital v Commission and Council [1990] ECR I-2939, paragraph 35.

7 Other formulations have used reasons or the facts and law here: judgments in Case 158/80 Rewe v Hauptzollatnt Kiel [1981] ECR 1805, paragraph 25; Case 45/86 Commission v Council 1987] ECR 1493, paragraph 5.

8 Judgments in Case 250/84, cited above, paragraph 38; Case 55/87, cited above, paragraph 23 ; Case 167/88, cited above, paragraph 34; Case 27/89, cited above, paragraph 27.

9 Judgments in Case 92/77 An Bord Bainne v Minister for Agriculture [1978] ECR 497, paragraphs 36 and 37; Case 125/77 Koninklijke Scholten-Honig v Hoofdproduktschap voor Akkerbouwprodukten [1978] ECR 1991, paragraph 19; similarly, in the case-law in relation to decisions: įudgmcnts in Case 185/83 University of Groningen v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen, Groningen [1984] ECR 3623, paragraph 38; Case C-213/87 Gemeente Amsterdam and VIA v Commission [1990] ECR I-221, paragraph 27; Case C-350/88 Delacrei Commission [1990] ECR I-395, paragraph 16

10 Council Regulation (EEC) No 516/77 of 14 March 1977 on the common organization of the market in products processed from fruit and vegetables, OJ 1977, L 73, p. 1.

11 As amended by Regulation No 988/84, OJ 1984, L 103, p 11.

12 OJ 1978, L 144, p. 1.

13 Council Regulation (EEC) No 426/86 of 24 February 1986 on the common organization of the market in products processed from fruit and vegetables, OJ 1986, L 49, p. 1.

14 See the judgment in Case 250/84, cited above, paragraph 38.

15 OJ 1985, L 137, p. 41.

16 As does Article 3(3) of Regulation No 516/77 as amended by Regulation No 988/84.

17 Council Regulation (EEC) No 988/84 of 31 March 1984 amending Regulation (EEC) No 516/77 on the common organization of the market in products processed from fruit and vegetables and Regulation (EEC) No 950/68 on the Common Customs Tariff, OJ 1984 L 103, p. 11.

18 Council Regulation (EEC) No 1206/82 of 18 May 1982 fixing a guarantee threshold for tomato concentrate and whole peeled tomatoes, OJ 1982 L 140, p 50.

19 My emphasis.

20 Principle laid down in the judgment in Joined Cases 117/76 and 16/77 Ruckdeschel v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen [1977] ECR 1753, paragraph 15; most recently confirmed in the judgment in Joined Cases C-267/88 to C-285/88 Wuidart [1990] ECR I-467, paragraph 13

21 Judgments in Case 13/63 Italy v Commission [1963] ECR 165, at p. 178; Case 8/82 Wagner v Bundesanstalt fur landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung [1983] ECR 371; Cast 106/83 Sermide v Cassa conguaglio zucchero [1984] ECR 4209, paragraph 28.

22 Judgments in Case 139/77 Denkavit v Finanzamt Warendorf [1978] ECR 1317, paragraph 15 infine. Case 106/81 Kind v EEC[1982) ECR 2885, paragraphs 22 and 24.

23 Sec the judgments in Kind, cited above (in the previous footnote), and in Joined Cases 9/71 and 11/71 Compagnie d'approvisionnement v Commission [1972] ECR 391, paragraph 42.

24 Judgments in Case 138/78 Stölting v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas [1979] ECR 713, paragraph 7, Case 179/84 Bozzetti v Invernizz i [1985] ECR 2301, paragraph 11; Joined Cases C-267/88 to C-285/88, cited above (footnote 19), paragraph 14.

25 See for example the judgment in Case 59/83 Biovilac v ££C[1984]ECR 4057, paragraph 16.

26 In other words, at a time when the aspect of the different degree of responsibility for the surplus production does not yet play so great a role.

27 Judgment in Case 167/88 Association générale des producteurs de blé et autres céréales v O/V/C [1989] ECR 1653, paragraph 29, referring to the judgment in Case 98/78 Räcke v Hauptzollamt Mainz [1979] ECR 69, paragraph 5.

28 See the judgment in Joined Cases C-267/88 to C-285/88, cited above (in footnote 19), paragraph 14.

29 See footnote 7.

30 Judgments in Case 16/65 Schwarze v Einfuhr- und Vorratsslelle jur Futtermittel [1965] ECR 877, at p. 888; Case C-350/88, cited above (footnote 8), paragraph 16.

31 See Commission Decision of 7 January 1987, OJ 1987 L 45, p. 28.

32 Regulation No 1925/84, third recital in the preamble; Regulation No 2222/85, fourth recital in the preamble.

33 Regulation No 2077/86, fourth recital in the preamble.

34 Regulation No 2160/87, fourth recital in the preamble.

35 ... la produzione de la communità per la campagna ... , calcolata supera il limite ... (my emphasis)

36 ... la production communautaire, calculé conformément ... dépasse le seuil fixé pour la campagne 1985/86 and 1986/87 respectively.

37 See footnote 5.

38 See the judgment in Case 119/86 Spain v Council and Commission [1987] ECR 4121, paragraph 48 et seq. and 51.

39 See the previous footnote.