Opinion of Advocate General Gulmann delivered on 16 June 1992

1 Original language: Danish.

2 Undoubtedly in bringing the application the Commission's purpose was to establish that in any case and at a given penod there was a so-called List D, and that that list, because it required permission for the importation of goods from third countries, was incompatible with Community rules prohibiting quantitative restrictions on imports into the Community of goods from third countries. Greece contends that the Commission's sole purpose in bringing this action was to establish that there was a List D with the legal effects claimed by the Commission. It thinks that establishing whether authorization to import matches from Sweden and Bulgaria was in fact refused has no relevance for a decision in this case.

3 The Commission describes the concept of List D, which is also referred to in the pleadings as Procedure D, as follows: It concerns an internal list drawn up by the Ministry of Trade and the National Bank of Greece. List D covers certain products for the importation of which into Greece from third countries a prior import permit is required. The Commission assumes that the number and type of products covered at any one time by List D varies according to decisions taken by the Ministry of Trade, whose responsibility it is to draw up the list, which has never at any ame been officially Çublished in Greece but is secretly kept by the Ministry of rade and the National Bank of Greece (see application, p. 2.)

4 See Annex 2 to the defence.

5 OJ 1983 L 346, p. 6.

6 OJ 1982 L 35, p. 1.

7 OJ 1972 L 300, p. 97.

8 Council Regulation (EEC) No 3397/80 of 8 December 1980 (OJ 1980 L 357, p. 104).

9 In any case the Greek authorities had refused in individual cases to give permission for the import of these products and the Commission started proceedings in this connection under Article 169 of the Treaty, but did not pursue them.

10 See Annex 22 to the application.

11 See Annex 2 to the application.

12 See Annex 3 to the application. The answer, as far as I can see, does not deal with the background or the legal basis of the rejection of the original application for an import permit.

13 See Annex 25 to the application.

14 I refer in particular to Annexes 4a, 4b, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14 and 24 to the Commission's application. A letter of 8 May 1987 from the Swedish Ambassador to the Greek Minister for Trade states inter alia: On 5 May Mrs Pantazi's secretary stated that Mrs Pamazi still had instructions not to grant any permit for the importation of Swedish matches into Greece (Annex 4b). A letter of 11 July 1989 from the Swedish Match Company to a Commission official states: Yesterday I received a fax from the First Secretary of the Swedish Embassy in Athens, Esbjörn Sköld. Mr Angelopoulou, the Minister for Trade, has informed the Swedish Embassy that the following products were covered by Procedure D: pistachio nuts, ground nuts, chick peas (roasted), hazel nuts, sponges (natural), matches and gold. Procedure D implies that the Greek authorities are attempting to block imports of such products and to protect domestic producuon. (Annex 14).

15 See Annex 5 to the application.

16 See Annex 1 to the defence.

17 See for example the judgments of the Court in Case C-35/88 [1990] ECR I-3125, Case 272/86 [1988] ECR 4875 and Case 240/86 [1988] ECR 1835, all delivered in cases between the Commission and Greece.