Opinion of Advocate General Gulmann delivered on 21 January 1992

1 Original language: Danish.

2 OJ 1986 L 376, p. 7.

3 OJ 1987 L 180, p. 1.

4 The applicants refer in this connection to the Court's judgment in Case 32/79 Commission v United Kingdom [1980] ECR 2403. It was argued in that case, inter alia, that the United Kingdom had tailed to fulfil its obligation to implement Regulation No 1779/77 by way of measures which had been laid down in law and published. The Court expressed itself in the following mannen ... This obligation to introduce implementing measures which are effective in law and with which those concerned may readily acquaint themselves is particularly necessary where sea fisheries are concerned, which must be planned and organized in advance; the requirement of legal clarity is indeed imperative in a sector in which any uncertainty may well lead to incidents and the application of particularly serious sanctions (paragraph 46).

5 Such a provision governing a time period was, for instance, the subject of the Court's judgment in Case 148/87 Frydendahl Pedersen A/S v Commission [1988] ECR 4993. That case concerned the validity of a decision adopted by the Commission and addressed to the Danish Government, in which the Commission stated that there were no grounds for the repayment of import duties paid by the applicant. Article 7 of Regulation No 1575/80 is worded as follows: If the Commission fails to take a decision within the period referred to in Article 5 or fails to notify a decision to the Member State in question within the period referred to in Article 6, the decision-making authority shall grant the application. The Court went on to declare the decision adopted by the Commission to be void, by reference to the fact that it had not been adopted before the expiry of the prescribed period and that the Commission's attempt to circumvent the time-limit constituted a misuse of procedure.

6 See the similar judgments of the Court in Cases C-259/87, C-334/87 and C-335/87 Greece v Commission [1990] I-2845, 2849 and 2875.

7 Application in Case C-258/90, at page 18 of the French translation.

8 Application in Case C-258/90, at page 21 of the French translation.

9 Application in Case C-258/90, at page 21 of the French translation.

10 See, inter alia, the Court's judgment in Joined Cases 424 and 425/85 Coöperatieve Melkproducentenbednjven Noord-Nederland BA (Frico) and Others v Voedselvoorziening! In-en Verkoopbureau [1987] ECR 2755, paragraph 33, where the Court ruled that if it found that large private stocks of butter were accumulating in Member States with low interest rates, the Commission was entitled to assess the situation in a différent way than several months before. It is established case-law ... that traders are unable to claim that they have a legitimate expectation that an existing situation which is capable of being altered by the institutions of the Community in the exercise of their power of appraisal will be maintained. A reduction of the interest rate talten into account for the reimbursement of the cost of financing storage was thus a possibility that a prudent trader should have taken into consideration ....