Opinion of Mr Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 10 November 1993

1 Original language: English.

2 Case T-30/89 Hilti v Commission [1991] LCR II-1439.

3 Commission Decision 88/138/EEC of 22 December 1987 relating to a proceeding under Article 86 of the EEC Treaty (IV/30.787 and 31.488 — Eurofix-Btmm v Hilti), OJ 1988 L 65, p. 19.

4 Case 6/72 Europemballage and Continental Can v Commission [1973] ECR 215. See similarly Case 31/80 L'Oréal v De Nieuwe AMCK [1980] ECR 3775, paragraph 25, and Case C-62/86 AKZO v Commission [1991] ECR I-3359, paragraph 51.

5 See in particular the discussion in Whish, Competition Law (2nd edition; London 1989), pp. 278-287.

6 On the application of the limitation to appeals in staff cases, see for example: Case C-115/90 P Turner v Commission [1991] ECR I-1423; Case C-283/90 P Vidrányi v Commission [1991] ECR I-4339; Case C-107/90 P Hochbaum v Commission [1992] ECR I-157; Case C-18/91 P V. v Parliament [1992] ECR I-3997.

7 Cf. Case 42/84 Remia v Commission [1985] ECR 2545, paragraph 34.

8 See below, paragraphs 46 to 49.

9 Council Decision 88/591/ECSC, EEC, Euratom, OJ 1988 L 319, p. 1.

10 Council Decision 93/350/Euratom, ECSC, EEC, OJ 1993 L 144, p. 21.

11 The entry into force of the Decision is deferred, in antidumping and anti-subsidy cases, to a date that the Council shall fix by unanimous decision: see Article 3.

12 Case 22/78 Hugin v Commission [1979] ECR 1869.

13 Case 27/76 United Brands v Commission [1978] ECR 207, paragraph 65.

14 Case 322/81 Michelin v Commission [1983] ECR 3461.

15 See Case 85/76 Hoffmann-La Roche v Commission [1979] ECR 461, paragraph 41.

16 Cited in note 14; see paragraphs 33, 34 and 48 of the judgment.

17 Cited above in note 12; see paragraph 122 of the judgment, where the matter is however considered under the heading of the position of United Brands on the relevant market rather than that of the definition of the relevant market.

18 Cited above in note 3; see paragraphs 33 to 36 of the judgment.

19 See for example Case 26/75 General Motors v Commission [1975] ECR 1367; Case 226/84 British Leyland v Commission [1986] ECR 3263; Case C-41/90 Höfner and Eher [1991] ECR I-1979.

20 See note 16 above, and see also Hoffmann-La Roche, cited in note 14, paragraphs 33 and 34 of the judgment.

21 Joined Cases 29/83 and 30/83 CRAM and Rheinzink v Commission [1984] ECR 1679.

22 Cf. the remarks of Advocate General Sir Gordon Slynn in Joined Cases 100-103/80 Musique Diffusion Française v Commission [1983] ECR 1825, pp. 1930-1931.

23 See paragraphs 9 to 12 above.

24 See Article 116 (4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, and Article 116 (1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.