Opinion of Advocate General Tesauro delivered on 25 June 1992

1 Original language: Italian.

2 According to a ministerial communication, the contributions are to be used to finance programmes for improving the competitive position of Belgian livestock.

3 In fact, the question raised in Cases C-144-145/91 expressly mentions only Articles 92 and 95 of the Treaty. Nevertheless, it is clear that the question raised by the national court in general concerns the problem of the validity under Community law of the parafiscal charges intended to finance State aid; it accordingly concerns not only Article 95 but also the provisions on charges having equivalent effect contained in Articles 9 and 12 of the Treaty. Conversely, it should be pointed out that the question raised in Case C-17/91 refers also to Article 30 of the Treaty. I consider, however, that it is superfluous to give a reply under that head, having regard to the residual nature of that provision in contrast to special provisions such as Articles 9 and 12, 95 and 92 of the Treaty; that residual nature was confirmed most recently in the Société Commerciale de l'Ouest judgment.

4 The question is formulated solely in relation to Articles 9 and 12. Nevertheless, in order to give the national court a useful reply to the question raised and to avoid obvious inconsistencies, it is necessary to refer to the various provisions already examined.

5 In relation to the charge which is the subject-matter of the main proceedings, the Commission has initiated the procedure laid down in Article 93(2) (see OJ 1990 C 22, p. 4). Nevertheless, until the completion of that procedure, ail the aspects of the aid which are authorized, if only by implication, by the decision of 17 May 1989, may lawfully be applied.