Opinion of Advocate General Van Gerven delivered on 15 September 1993

1 Original language: Dutch.

2 The Commission annexed this press communiqué to its defence.

3 Commission Recommendation 86/156/EEC of 6 May 1986 addressed to the Member States concerning the coordination of national measures taken in respect of agricultural products as a result of radioactive fallout from the Soviet Union (OJ 1986 L 118, p. 28).

4 Commission Decision 86/157/EEC of 7 May 1986 suspending the inclusion of certain countries on the list of third countries from which the Member States authorize imports of bovine animals, swine and fresh meat (OJ 1986 L 120, p. 66).

5 OJ 1986 L 127, p. 1.

6 In implementation of this Council regulation the Commission adopted two further regulations, namely Regulation (EEC) No 1505/86 of 16 May 1986 (OJ 1986 L 131, p. 45) and Regulation (EEC) No 1603/86 of 26 May 1986 (OJ 1986 L 140, p. 24).

7 OJ 1986 L 146, p. 88.

8 In implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1707/86 the Commission adopted Regulation (EEC) No 1762/S6 of 5 June 1986 (OJ 1986 L 152, p. 41).

9 Council document 7357/86, p. 2; submitted by the Council as an annex to its defence.

10 OJ 1987 L 371, p. 14.

11 The period of validity of that regulation was subsequently extended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 4003/89 of 21 December 1989 (OJ 1989 L 382, p. 4). The regulation was then replaced by Council Regulation (EEC) No 737/90 of 22 March 1990 (OJ 1990 L 82, p. 1). The latter regulation, whose period of validity extends until 31 March 1995, lays down the same maximum tolerances but provides for a procedure excluding from the scope of the regulation products whose radioactivity has fallen to the level subsisting prior to the accident at Chernobyl.

12 OJ 1987 L 371, p. 11. In its title the regulation is described as laying down maximum permitted levels of radioactive contamination of foodstuffs and of feeding-stuffs following a nuclear accident or any other case of radiological emergency.

13 Telex No VS-S-1/1187/86/D1/GG/G8.

14 OJ 1988 L 245, p. 13.

15 In the version applicable at that time after being repealed by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1579/86 of 23 May 1986 (OJ 1986 L 139, p. 29) and amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1097/88 of 25 April 1988 (OJ 1988 L 110, p. 7).

16 Judgment of 19 May 1992 in Joined Cases C-104/89 and C-37/90 Mulder and Others v Council and Commission [1992] ECR I-3061, paragraphs 12 and 13.

17 OJ 1975 L 281, p. 1; subsequently amended on several occasions.

18 See paragraph 6 above.

19 As mentioned above that procedure was established only in Regulation No 3954/87 (see paragraph 8 above).

20 Directive 80/836/Euratom (OJ 1980 L 246, p. 1).

21 Opinion of Advocate General Capotorti of 1 March 1978 in Joined Cases 83/76, 94/76, 4/77, 15/77 and 40/77 HNL v Council and Commission [1978] ECR 1209, at p. 1231.

22 See Article 5(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ, English Special Edition 1970(1), p. 218).

23 OJ 1977 L 174, p. 15.

24 OJ 1979 L 317, p. 1.

25 Judgment in Case 58/86 Coopérative Agricole d'Approvisionnement des Avirons v Receveur des Douanes [1987] ECR 1525, paragraph 15.

26 The only fact to which KYDEP refers is that only the Greek Government sought compensation for the consequences of Chernobyl in the Council and in the Committee of Permanent Representatives. In support of that allegation KYDEP cites certain Council documents. According to the Council those arc documents which under Article 18 of the Rules of Procedure of the Council (OJ 1979 L 268, p. 1), are subject to the secrecy rule and in respect of which no authorization was requested in order that they be submitted to the Court. Consequently, the Court may not take cognizance of them. However that may be, the fact that only one government requested the adoption of measures cannot be taken as proof that a problem is solely of concern to that Member State.

27 OJ 1986 L 139, p. 29.

28 As an annex to its rejoinder the Commission appended a scientific study in which both situations were explained.

29 Judgment in Case 116/82 Commission v Germany [1986] ECR 2519, paragraph 21.