Opinion of Mr Advocate General Tesauro delivered on 31 December 1991

1 Original language: Italian.

2 OJ 1984 L 154, p. 27.

3 OJ 1980 L 183, p. 1.

4 OJ 1984 L 90, p. 35.

5 Emphasis added.

6 See the judgments of 2 February 1988 in Case 61/86 United Kingdom v Commission, [1988] ECR 431, at paragraph 10, and in Case 162/86 Livestock Sales Transport v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce [1988] ECR 489, at paragraph 9.

7 Judgment in Livestock Sales Transport, cited above, at paragraph 9; along the same lines, see the judgment in United Kingdom v Commission, cited above, at paragraph 15.

8 Judgment in United Kingdom v Commission, cited above, at paragraph 11 (emphasis added); along the same lines, see the judgment of 15 September 1982 in Case 106/81 Kind v Commission [1982] ECR 2885 at paragraph 21.

9 Judgment in Commission v United Kingdom, cited above, at paragraph 15 (emphasis added).

10 A typical example which clearly represents a borderline case, but which is a good illustration of the imbalance which can result from the method applied: in the week from 1 to 7 August 1988 the rate in question was equal to... zero; two weeks later (from 16 to 21 August) the rate was 56.326; this means, evidently, that a trader who exported in the week from 16 to 21 August an animal placed on the market in the week from 1 to 7 August would have paid the clawback for an animal in respect of which no premium had been granted! Evidently the exact opposite can also occur.

11 See, for instance, the judgment of 15 January 1986 in Case 41/84 Pinna v Caisse d'Allocations Familiales de la Savoie [1986] ECR 1, at paragraphs 28 and 29, and the judgment of 27 February 1985 in Case 112/83 Produits de Maïs v Administration des Douanes et Droits Indirects [1985] ECR 719, at paragraphs 17 and 18.

12 Judgment of 15 October 1980 in Case 4/79 Providence Agricole de la Champagne v ONIC [1980] ECR 2823, at paragraph 45; judgment in Pinna, cited above, at paragraph 30.