Opinion of Mr Advocate General Van Gerven delivered on 28 November 1991

1 Original language: Dutch.

2 OJ 1987 L 241, p. 6.

3 OJ 1987 L 26, p. 59.

4 Judgment of 6 November 1990 in Case C-354/87 Weddel & Co. BV v Commission [1990] ECR I-3847, at paras. 35 and 36. The Court held that neither the principle of equal treatment nor the principle of legal certainty had been breached. The Court considered inter dia that the contested ceiling was not unlawful because it was not a new rule but mereh/clarified and was a necessary consequence of the preexisting Community rules.

5 See the application to the Arrondissementsrechtbank for the holding of a provisional hearing of witnesses, point 1, Annex 3(b) of the application.

6 See Annex 3(a) of the application with regard to the objective of and the provisions concerning the provisional hearing of witnesses and Annex 3(b), that is the application to the Arrondissementsrechtbank for a provisional hearing of witnesses.

7 See Annex 3(c) of the application with regard to the decision by the Arrondissementsrechtbank.

8 P. 7 of the application and the minutes of 16 January 1990 of the hearing of witnesses, annex 4 of the application, see principally p. 7, evidence of the head of the EEC department of the Produktschap, and also pp. 10-11, the evidence of the head of the Principal Department for Meat and Poultry Products in the Directorate for market organization questions.

9 The letter of 15 November 1989 was addressed to an official of the Commission's Legal Service (Annex 6(b) of the application). The letter of 29 November 1989 was addressed to the Director-General of the Directorate-General for Agriculture at the Commission (Annex 6(d]. The requests made therein were premature in the sense that Weddel's request for a provisional hearing of witnesses to be held were granted only on 11 December 1989 by the Arrondissementsrechtbank. In the letter of 14 December 1989 to the Director-General for Agriculture, the Commission was informed of the fact that the official in question had been summonsed to appear on 23 January 1990.

10 See the interna] memorandum from the Director-General for Personnel and Administration, R. Hay, to the officiai in question, dated 11 January 1990, Annex 2(b) of the application.

11 Letter from the Director-General for Agriculture in the Commission, dated 12 January 1990, Annex 2(a) of the application.

12 See the letters of 15 and 29 November 1989 already mentioned in footnote 8.

13 See above at para. 8. The other language versions confirm this interpretation. The French text for example states: ... des constatations qu'il a faites en raison de ses fonctions; the Dutch text: ... hetgeen hij in verband met zijn ambtsbezigheden heeft bevonden; the German text: ... bei seiner amtlichen Tätigkeit bekannt gewordenen Tatsachen and the Italian text: ... fatti di cui sia venuto a conoscenza a causa del suo ufficio.

14 See Annex 2b of the application.

15 See para. 18.

16 See for example the judgment of 16 November 1983 in Case 188/82 Thyssen v Commission [1983] ECR 3721, the judgment of 10 June 1982 in Case 217/81 Interagm v Commission [1988] ECR 2233 and the judgment of 27 March 1980 Case 133/79 Sucrimex [1980] 1299.

17 Judgment in Joined Cases 19, 20, 25 and 30/69 Richtz-Pansev Commission [1970] ECR 325, at paragraph 36.