Opinion of Advocate General Lenz delivered on 11 July 1991
1 Original language: German.
2 Case C-18/88 RTT v GB-Inno-BM [1991] ECR I-5941.
3 Case 8/74 Procureur du Roi v Dassonville [1974] ECR 837
4 Case 120/78 REWE Zentrale v Bundesnionopolvem allang fur Branntwein [1979] ECR 649.
5 Opinion in Case C-18/88, point 13.
6 Case 21/84 Commission v France [1985] 1355, paragraph 13.
7 Opinion in Case 21/84, cited above, and judgment, paragraph 13.
8 Case 155/73 Sacchi [1974] 409, paragraph 6 cl seq.; Casc 271/81 Amelioration ile l'Élevage v Mialocq [1983] 2057, naragraph 8 et seq. and Casc 30/87 líoäson v Pompes Funebres ties Regions libérées [ 1988] 2479, paragraph IG et seq., most recently Case C 260/89 ERT:1991; IXR 1 2925, para graph 15 et seq., and Opinion, paragraph 24 ct scq
9 Case 13/70 Cinzano v Hauptzollamt Saarbrücken [1970] ECR 1089, paragraph 9.
10 Case 86/78 Peureux v Services Fiscaux de la Haute-Saône et du Territoire de Belfort [1979] 897, paragraph 35.
11 Case 13/77 Inno v ATAB [1977] ECR 2115, paragraph 28 et seq. and Joined Cases 209/84 to 213/84 Ministere Public v Asjes (Nouvelles Frontières) [1986] ECR 1425, paragraph 71 et seq.; Case 66/86 Ahmed Saeed Flugreisen v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs [1989] ECR 803, paragraph 47 et seq.; Case 231/83 Cullet v Leclerc [1985] ECR 305.
12 Commission Directive 88/301'EEC of 16 May 1988 (OJ 1988 1. 131. p 73).
13 Case C: 202/88 Iraner \Commission [1991] ECR I 1223
14 Case C: 202/88. cited above, paragraphs 51 and 52
15 Article 6 of Commission Directive 88/301/EEC provides that:Member States shall ensure that, from 1 July 1989, respon sibility for drawing up the specifications referred to in Art! clc 5, monitoring their application and granting tvpc approval is entrusted to a body independent of public or private undertakings offering goods and/or services in the telecommunications sector.
16 Case C-202/88, cited above, paragraph 18.
17 Case 26/75 General Motors v Commission [1975] ECR 1367; Case 226/84 British Leyland v Commission [1986] ECR 3263; Case 311/84 CBEM v CLT and IPB [1985] ECR 3261; Case C-41/90 Hòfner and Eher v Macrotron [1991] ECR I-1979, paragraph 28; and Case C-260/89 ERT [1991] ECR I-2925, paragraph 31.
18 See, lor example. Case 27/76 United Bruneti v Commision 1978; ECR 207, paragraph 65.
19 Case 26/75 General Moton v Commissionm [1975] ECR 1367, paragraphs 7, 8 and 9, and Case 226/84, cited above, paragraph 3 et seq.
20 Case 322/81, Michelin v Commission, cued above, para graph 28, and Case C 41/90 Hofner and Elser v Macrotron. cited above, paragraph 28.
21 Case 155/73 Sacchi, cited above, paragraph 14.
22 Case 26/75 General Motors v Commission, cited above, Case 226/84 British Leyland v Commission, cited above, and Case C-202/88 France v Commission, paragraph 55.
23 Opinion in Case C-18/88 RTT v GB Inno BM, paragraph 34 et seq.
24 Casc 85/76 Hoffmann-La Roche v Commission [1979] ECR 461, paragraph 91.
25 Case 6/72 Europemballage and Continental Can v Commission [1973] ECR 215.
26 Case 6/72 Europemballage and Continental Can v Commission, cited above, paragraph 26.
27 Case 6/72 Europemballage and Continental Can v Commission, cited above.
28 Case 6/72 Europemballage and Continental Can v Commission, cited above, paragraph 27.
29 Case 26/75 General Motors v Commission, cited above; Case 226/84 British Leyland v Commission, cited above, and Case 21/84 Commission v France [1985] 1355.
30 Case C 41/90 Höfner and Elser v Macrotron, cited above (note 16).
31 Case C 260/89 ERT, cited above (note 16).
32 Case C 41/90 Hofner and Elser v Macrotron, cited above. paragraph 29 (emphasis added).
33 Case C 41/90 Hofner and User v Macrolron, cited above, paragraphs 30 and 31
34 Case C 260/89 ERT. cited above (emphasis added). The English version of the relevant extract from the judgment is worded as follows: Article 90(1) of the Treaty prohibits the granting of an exclusive right to transmit and an exclusive right to retransmit television broadcasts to a single under taking, where those rights are liable to create a situation in which that undertaking is led to infringe Article 86 by vir lue of a discriminatory broadcasting policy which favours its own programmes, unless the application of Article 86 obstructs the performance of tne particular tasks entrusted to it; ..
35 Case C 26C/89 ERT. cited aboie (emphasis added)
36 Case 85/76 Hoffmann-La Roche v Commission, cited above, paragraph 91.
37 Case 322/81 Michelin v Commission [1983] ECR 3461, paragraph 104, and Case C-41/90 Höfner and Elser v Macrotron, cited above, paragraph 32.
38 See the Belgian Government's answers to the questions put by the Court.