Opinion of Judge Edward acting as Advocate General

1 Original language: English.

2 Case T-64/89 Automec v Commission [1990] ECR II-367.

3 Case 127/73 BRT v Sabam [1974] ECR 51, 62 at point 15.

4 Case 125/78 GEMA v Commission [1979] ECR 3173, 3189 at points 17 and 18.

5 Case 26/76 Metro v Commission [1977] ECR 1875, 1901 at point 13.

6 Case 210/81 Demo-Studio Schmidt v Commission [1983] ECR 3045, 3065 at point 19.

7 Case 298/83 CICCE v Commission [1985] ECR 1105, 1122 at point 18.

8 Case 60/81 IBM v Commission [1981] ECR 2639.

9 See the annotation by Stephen O. Spinks in (1991) 28 CMLRev 453 at pp. 459-62.

10 The original German and Dutch texts seem to be more explicit than the French and Italian, and certainly more explicit than the English, in referring to an act (... einen Beschluß zu fassen .../... een besluit te nemen ...).

11 This idea seems to come out particularly strongly in the German text: Diese Klage ist nur zulässig, wenn das in Frage stehende Organ zuvor aufgefordert worden ist, tätig zu werden.

12 Details of earlier events are set out in Automec I [1990] ECR 373-5, at points 8 to 16.

13 [1990] ECR at pages II-390-391, points 72-77.

14 See GEMA [1979} ECR at page 3190, point 21.

15 Case 302/87 Parliament v Coucil [1988] ECR 5615, 5641, point 17.

16 See, for example, the Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities, European Union, 14th Report of Session 1984-85, paragraph 51 at page xxi, and the evidence of Dr Ehlermann and Dr Glaesner at page 106, QQ.165-6.

17 EEC Competition Rules — Guide for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises, November 1983, page 46, republished as EEC Competition Policy in the Single Market, March 1989, page 48.

18 Rio Tinto Zinc Corporation v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation [1978] AC 547, applying Section 14 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968.