Opinion of Mr Advocate General Lenz delivered on 11 February 1992

1 Original language: German.

2 Judgment in Case C-297/89 Rigsadvokaten v Ryborg [1991] ECR I-1943.

3 Council Directive of 28 March 1983; OJ 1983 L 105, p. 59.

4 In its application to the Court the Commission alleged dial, as it appears in the notice under Article 169, the phrase reads less than a year... on account of a transcription error; it should properly read more than a year Leaving aside the Commission's inability to amend the content of the notice at the time of bringing the action, I find that the reformulated phrase docs not make sense.

5 Judgment in Case 134/83, criminal proceedings against Abbink [1984] ECR 4097.

6 Judgment in Case 249/84 Ministère Public v Profant [1985] ECR 3237.

7 Judgment in Case 127/86 Ministère Public and Belgian Ministry of Finance v Ledoux [1988] ECR 3741.

8 Cited above.

9 Judgment in Case 15/81 Schul v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen [1982] ECR 1409; judgment in Case 47/84 Staatssecretaris van Financien v Schul [1985] ECR 491; see also the judgments in Case 39/85 Bcrgeres-Becque Chef dc Service Interrégional des Douanes [1986] ECR 259, Case 299/86, criminalprocecdings against DrcxJ Ų988] ECR 1213, Case 120/88 Commission v Italy [1991] LCR I-621, Casc 119/89 Commission v Spain, and Case 159/89 Commission v Greece.

10 Judgment in Case C-347/88 Commission v Greece [1990] ECR I-4747, at paragraph 29.

11 See judgment cited in the previous footnote, at paragraph 28.

12 See above, at paragraph 20.

13 Sec paragraph I. B.3 of the application (p. 7).

14 Sec paragraph I. B.5 of the application (p. 8).

15 Sec paragraph 11 above.

16 See paragraph 12 above.

17 The Commission's application firmly precludes the explanation that it wished to present two fundamentally dissimilar situations as the subject of the proceedings. Although it refers to actual events (the Ryborg and Hansen cases), there is no evidence that the provisions or obligations infringed in the first case are different from those infringed in the second; see also below, paragraph 38 et seq.

18 See paragraph 13 above.

19 Judgment in Case C-347/88 Commission v Greece [1990] ECR I-4747, at paragraph 16 et seq.

20 Opinion of Mr Advocate General Tesauro in Case C-347/88 [1990] ECR I-4767, at the end of paragraph 8; Opinion of Mr Advocate General Darnion in Case C-43/90 Commission v Germany [1992] ECR I-1909, at paragraph 4.

21 See for example the judgment in Case 31/69 Commission v Italy [1970] ECR 25, at paragraph 13.

22 Judgment in Case 274/83 Commission v Italy [1985] ECR 1077, at paragraph 21; judgment in Case 347/88 Commission v Greece [1990] ECR I-4747 at paragraph 24; see also the earlier judgment in Case 325/82 Commission v Germany [1984] ECR 777 at paragraph 8.

23 In the context of the less rigorous requirements for the notice under Article 169, see for example the judgment in Case C-274/83 Commission v Italy [1985] ECR 1077.

24 Judgment in Case 211/81 Commission v Denmark [1982] ECR 4547, at paragraph 8; judgment in Case 229/87 Commission v Greece [1988] ECR 6347, at paragraph 12.

25 Judgment in Case 211/81, cited above (previous footnote), at paragraph 14; judgment in Case 298/86 Commission v Belgium [1988] ECR 4343, at paragraph 10.

26 See the judgment in Case 211/81, cited above, at paragraph 11.

27 See judgment in Case 51/83 Commission v Italy [1984] ECR 2793, at paragraph 6 et seq.; judgment in Case 217/88 Commission v Germany [1990] ECR I-2879, at paragraph 11, read in conjunction with section 1.3 of the Report for the Hearing (p. 2884, right-hand column, second paragraph).