Opinion of Advocate General Lenz delivered on 13 December 1991

1 Original language: German.

2 Commission v Italy [1987] ECR 2013.

3 Co-Frutta v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato [1987] ECR 2085.

4 Diamanurbeiders v índiamex [1973] ECR 1609.

5 OJ, Enghsh Special Edition 1968(1), p. 275.

6 Kunstmühle Tivoli v Hauptzollamt Würzburg [1968] ECR 199.

7 Hansen v Hauptzollamt Flensburg [1978] ECR 1787.

8 OJ 1986 L 86, p. 1.

9 Paragraph 22.

10 Cf. Joined Cases 21 to 24/72 International Fruit Company v Produktschap voor Groenten en Fruit [1972] ECR 1219; Case 266/81 SIOT v Ministero delle Finanze [1983] ECR 731; Case 70/87 Fediol v Commission [1989] ECR 1781; and my Opinion in Case 193/85.

11 Schröder v Stadt Köln [1975] ECR 905.

12 Commission v Denmark [1983] ECR 3573.

13 Simmentbal v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato [1978] ECR 1453.

14 Commission v Netherlands [1991] ECR I-4069.

15 Donckerwolcke v Procureur de la République [1976] ECR 1921.

16 Paragraphs 15 to 21.

17 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v SPI and SAMT [1983] ECR 801.

18 Cf. Casc 9/73 Schlüter v Hauptzollamt Lörrach [1973] ECR 1135.

19 OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 437.

20 OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

21 OJ 1987 L 370, p. 33.

22 OJ 1986 L 86, p. 1.

23 OJ 1991 L 229, p. 1.

24 Hauptzollamt Mainz v Kupferberg [1982] ECR 3641.

25 Judgment in Case 12/86 Demirel v Stadt Schwäbisch Gmünd [1987] ECR 3719.

26 Judgment in Case C-18/90 ONEM v Kīiber [1991] ECR I-199.