Opinion of Advocate General Gulmann delivered on 11 November 1992

1 Original language: Danish.

2 OJ 1979 L 175, p. 1.

3 OJ 1982 L 186, p. 1.

4 Article 13 was amended by Council Regulation No 3069/86 (OJ 1986 L 286, p. 1). It is now worded as follows:Import duties may be repaid or remitted in special situations other than those referred to in sections A to D, which result from circumstances in which no deception or obvious negligence may be attributed to the person concerned. It is common ground in these cases that the applications should be dealt with on the basis of Article 13, as worded in the 1982 regulation.

5 OJ 1980 L 161, p. 13, and OJ 1983 L 104, p. 14.

6 OJ 1986 L 352, p. 19.

7 See, for example, the judgments in Joined Cases 212/80 to 217/80 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Salumi [1981] ECR 2735 and in Case 154/84 FKF v Hauptzollamt Berlin-Süd [1985] ECR 3165.

8 Salumi II judgment, cited in the preceding footnote, and Case 113/81 Reichelt v Hauptzollamt Berlin-Süd [1982] ECR 1957.

9 In my view, the applicants' reference to the Opinion of Advocate General Lenz in Case 148/87 Frydendahl Pedersen v Commission [1988] ECR 4993, which concerned the same rules as those at issue in the present cases, is irrelevant. The Court has not had occasion to rule on the question whether the 1986 implementing regulation had retrospective effect. This point had, however, been examined by the Commission and Advocate General Lenz. The Frydendahl Pedersen case differed in one essential respect from the present cases in that it related to an application lodged with the Commission before the entry into force of the 1986 implementing regulation. The applicant had maintained that the 1986 implementing regulation was illegal to the extent that it would apply retrospectively to all applications on which a decision had not been reached by 1 January 1987. The Commission and Advocate General Lenz agreed in principle with the applicant in considering that the new rules of the 1986 implementing regulation did not have retrospective effect in that case; they considered that the new rules did not affect the treatment of applications already lodged with the Commission before the regulation came into force.

10 Joined Cases 98/83 and 230/83 Van Gend & Loos and Expeditiebedrijf Wim Bosman v Commission [1984] ECR 3763.

11 Joined Cases 244/85 and 245/85 Cerealmangimi and Italgrani v Commission [1987] ECR 1303.

12 OJ 1980 L 347, p. 73.

13 Case 294/81 Control Data v Commission [1983] ECR 911.

14 See paragraph 9 in the Van Gend & Loos and Bosman judgment and paragraph 17 in the Control Data judgment.

15 The first judgment was delivered in Case 49/88 [1991] ECR I-3187 and the second in Joined Cases 48/90 and 66/90 [1992] ECR I-565.