Opinion of Mr Advocate General Van Gerven delivered on 20 February 1992

1 Original language: French.

2 OJ 1981 C 52, p. 2.

3 OJ 1981 L 177, p. 4.I shall refer in this Opinion 10 the Community provisions in force at the material time.

4 OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 155.

5 OJ 1984 L 221, p. 5.

6 OJ 1984 C 218, p. 27.

7 OJ 1984 L 90, p. 1.

8 See Commission Regulations (EEC) No 2976/84 of 24 October 1984 and No 3067/84 of 31 October 1984 fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar for, respectively, the tenth and eleventh partial invitations to tender issued within the framework of the principal standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation No 2382/84 (OJ 1984 L 281, p. 22, and L 288, p. 65).

9 Article 30(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2730/79 of 29 November 1979 laying down common detailed rules for tthe application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1979 L 317, p. 1).

10 The parties are in agreement on the figures indicated in the order for reference, including the amount in FF corresponding to the reduction effected by the Fund, although mathematically the difference between 4196946 and 3974893 comes to 222053.

11 Article 2(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 243/78 of 1 February 1978 providing for the advance fixing of monetary compensatory amounts (OJ 1978 L 37, p. 5) provides that levies or refunds fixed under a tendering procedure shall be considered to be fixed in advance.

12 OJ 1983 L 132, p. 33.

13 OJ 1977 L 106, p. 27.

14 OJ 1978 L 359, p. 11.

15 Council Regulation (EEC) No 3330/74 of 19 December 1974 on the common organization of the market in sugar (OJ 1974 L 359, p. 1). That regulation was repealed and replaced by Regulation No 1785/81.

16 Judgment in Case 292/82 [1983] ECR 3781.

17 See die judgment in Joined Cases 44/77 to 51/77 Union Malt v Commission [1978] ECR 57.

18 Compare paragraph 23 of the Union Malt judgment.

19 Judgment in Case 162/78 [1979] ECR 3467.

20 Commission Regulation of 11 August 1975 on a standing invitation to tender in order to determine a levy and/or refund on exports of white sugar (OJ 1975 L 214, p. 5).

21 Judgment in Case 108/77 [1978] ECR 1187.

22 The monetary coefficient applicable at the time when the sugar referred to in the licences was exported was set at 0.932 (and thus had a negative corrective effect) for exports from Germany and at 1.020 (thus having a positive corrective effect) for exports from France (see Annex U to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3719/84 of 27 December 1984 amending the monetary compensatory amounts (OJ 1984 L 342, p. 1].

23 OJ 1981 L 138, p. 14.

24 On the subject of the coefficient, see the judgment in Wagner v Commission, cited above, at paragraphs 18 to 21.

25 OJ 1985 L 164, p. 1. Wagner also refers to paragraph 7.1 of the General section of the Notice of 26 May 1987 (OJ 1987 C 140, p. 2) which replaced the Notice of 11 March 1981 under consideration in this case.