Opinion of Advocate General Lenz delivered on 9 February 1993

1 Original language: German.

2 Commission Regulation (EEC) No 262/79 of 12 February 1979 (OJ 1979 L 41, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3021/85 of 30 October 1985 (OJ 1985 L 289, p. 14).

3 Commission Regulation (EEC) No 453/85 of 21 February 1985 amending Regulation No 262/79 (OJ 1985 L 52, p. 40).

4 In the version of Regulation No 3021/85, cited above.

5 The national court assumes that it was the intermediary in Germany, in other words the plaintiff's direct contractual partner, that made representations, whereas the plaintiff's representative states that it was the processing undertaking that did so. In any case, one or other of those undertakings acted in the plaintiff's interests.

6 For a representative selection, see the judgments in Case 4/68 Schwarzwaldmilch v Einfuhr-und Vorratsstelle für Fette [1968] ECR 377, Case 158/73 Kampffmeyer v Einfuhr-und Vorratsstelle Getreide [1974] ECR 101, Case 64/74 Reich v Hauptzollamt Landau [1975] ECR 261, Case 6/78 Union Française de Céréales v Hauptzollamt Hamhurg-Jonas [1978] ECR 1675, Case 42/79 Milch-, Fett-und Eierkontor v Bundesanstalt für landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung [1979] ECR 3703, Case 20/84 De Jong v VIB [1985] ECR 2061, Case 124/83 Direktoratet for Markedsordningerne v Corman [1985] ECR 3777, Case 266/84 Denkavit France v Forma [1986] ECR 149, Case 109/86 Theodorakis v Greece [1987] ECR 4319, Case 296/86 McNicoll and Others v Minister for Agriculture [1988] ECR 1491, Case 71/87 Creek State v Inter-Kom [1988] ECR 1979, Case 199/87 Jensen v Landbrugs-ministeriet [1988] ECR 5045 and Case C-338/89 Organisationen Danske Slagterier [1991] ECR I-2315.

7 Cited above in footnote 5, p. 385.

8 Judgment in Case 284/82 Busseni v Commission [1984] ECR 557.

9 Denkavit France, cited above in footnote 7, and Joined Cases 154, 205, 206, 226 to 228, 263 and 264/78 and 39, 31, 83 and 85/79 Valsabbia v Commission [1980] ECR 907.

10 See footnote 5.

11 Denkavit France, cited above in footnote 5, paragraph 27.

12 Milch-, Fett-und Eierkontor (cited above in footnote 5), paragraph 10, and De Jong, ibid., paragraph 16.

13 Theodorakis (cited above in footnote 5), paragraph 6 et seq.; McNicholl ibid., paragraph 11; Organisationen Danske Slagterier, ibid., paragraph 16.

14 Cited above in footnote 5.

15 At paragraph 7. See also Organisationen Danske Slagterier, ibid., in which reference is made to the judgment in Case C-334/87 Greece v Commission [1990] ECR I-2849 (summary publication only).

16 Cited above in footnote 8.

17 See also Commission notice C(88) 1696 concerning force majeure in European agricultural law (88/C 259/07) (OJ 1988 C 259, p. 10).

18 For example, the Court views the fraudulent conduct of a duly authorized agent of a firm involved in a transaction as not a risk which could in no way have been foreseen in the sense of force majeure; Milch-, Fett-und Eierkontor, paragraph 10, and De Jong, paragraph 18, both cited above in footnote 5.

19 Cited above in footnote 5, at 150.

20 Denkavit France, cited above in footnote 5, at 158.

21 Cited above in footnote 16.

22 See, for example, De Jong, cited above in footnote 5.

23 My emphasis.

24 Judgements in Case 66/82 Fromançais v Forma [1983] ECR395, paragraph 8, Case 125/83 OBEA v Corman [1985] ECR 3039, paragraph 36, and Case C-118/89 Lingenfelser [1990] ECR I-2637, paragraph 12.

25 Judgment in Case 302/81 Eggers v Hauptzollamt Kassel [1982] ECR 3443, paragraph 8.