Opinion of Mr Advocate General Lenz delivered on 9 December 1992

1 Original language: German.

2 Council Regulation No 1078/77 of 17 May 1977 introducing a system of premiums for the non-marketing of milk and milk products and for the conversion of dairv herds, OJ 1977 L 131, p. 1.

3 Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector, OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13.

4 Council Regulation (EEC) No 764/89 of 20 March 1989 amending Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector, OJ 1989 L 84, p. 2.

5 This is an abbreviation of: Staking van de Levering van melk en zuivelprodukten en Omschakeling van het Melkveebestand (suspension of deliveries of milk and milk products and conversion of dairy herds).

6 By means of Regulation (EEC) No 1033/89 of 20 April 1989 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1546/88 laying down detailed rules for the application of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68, OJ 1989 L 110, p. 27.

7 Regulation of 3 June 1988, OJ 1988 L 139, p. 12.

8 Judgment in Case C-236/90 Makr [1992] ECR I-4483.

9 Judgment in Case C-86/90 O'Brien [1992] ECR I-6251.

10 OJ 1978 L 167. p. 45.

11 According to the wording of the order making the reference, the plaintiff is challenging the compatibility of Regulation No 764/89 with that principle. There can be no doubt, however, that the reference should be to Article 3a of Regulation No 15-16/88, the validity of which is in issue in the first question referred for a preliminary ruling.

12 Footnote 8 above.

13 Paragraph 12 of the judgment.

14 See footnote 12 above.

15 Paragraph 13 of the judgment.

16 This has now become the expression customarily used: see Case C-341/89 Ballmann [1991] ECR I-25; Report for the Hearingi I-29, right hand column; Opinion of Advocate General Tesauro, I-33, left hand column.

17 Judgment in Case C-84/90 Dent [1992] ECR I-2009, paragraph 17.

18 Council Regulation of 26 February 1985 amending Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 laying down general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector, OJ 1985 L 68, p. 1.

19 Commission Regulation of 16 May 1984 laying down detailed rules for the application of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68, OJ 1984 L 132, p. 11.

20 Judgment in Case 5/88 Wachauf [1989] ECR 2609, paragraphs 13 to 15; judgment in Case C-177/90 Kühn [1992] ECR I-35, paragraph 22.

21 Sec paragraph 11 and footnote 10 above.

22 Judgment in Case 120/86 Mulder [1988] ECR 2321.

23 Judgment in Case 170/86 Von Deetzen [1988] ECR 2355.

24 See, for example, paragraph 24 of the judgment in Mulder.

25 P.R 5 of the order making the reference; also paragraph 33 at the end of the plaintiff's written observations.

26 Paragraph 36 of his written observations.

27 Staatscourant 1988, No 64 of 31.3.1988.

28 Paragraph 23 of the plaintiff's written observations.

29 Opinion of 4 July 1991 in Case C-121/90 Posthumus [1991] ECR I-5833. at p. I-5844. paragraph 22.

30 Judgment in Case C-44/89 Von Deetzen [1991] ECR I-5119, paragraph 21.

31 See paragraphs 21 and 22 of the judgment.

32 Sec paragraph 22.

33 As to the fundamental rights, sec the judgment in Wachauf (footnote 19 above), paragraph 19.

34 According to the information given by the College, the question relates to Article 3a of Regulation No 8Í7/84.

35 Judgment in Case C-314/89 Ranh [1991] ECR I-1647.

36 Paragraph 21 of the judgment.

37 Paragraph 23 of the judgment.

38 Paragraph 25 and the operative part of the judgment.

39 Judgment in Case C-44/89, cited above.

40 Paragraph 40 of the judgment.

41 Paragraph 11 of the judgment.

42 Sec the Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs of 8 April 1992 in Case C-86/90 O'Brien [1992] ECR I-6251, paragraph 22.

43 See Article 12(c).

44 For further details, see paragraph 58 above.

45 Judgments in Case C-189/89 Spagl [1990] ECR I-4539, Case C-217/89 Pastätter [1990] ECR I-4585 and Case C-264/90 Wehrs [1992] ECR I-6285.

46 It is precisely because there exists no entitlement to a special reference quantity in the future that no remission is allowed in respect of the past.

47 Judgment in Joined Cases C-104/89 and C-37/90 Mulder and Others v Council and Commission [1992] ECR I-3061.