Opinion of Advocate General Gulmann delivered on 15 June 1993

1 Original language: Danish.

2 Case 374/87 Orkem v Commission [1989] ECR 3283. The Court gave a corresponding judgment on the same day in Case 27/88 Solvay v Commission [1989] ECR 3355 (summary publication).

3 In the order for reference it is stated that the national court's question is to enable it to be established whether an examination of witnesses can be carried out. in order to elicit proof in support of the following contentions: (c) The charge of HFL 0.45 is not based on any (financial) calculation by Postbank of the costs of processing giro transfer slips; (d) The charge was imposed by Postbank under an inter-bank agreement to charge HFL 0.30 for the mutual processing of giro transfer slips; (c) Postbank cither consulted with other banks with regard to the introduction of a charge for processing transfer giro slips, or else there is a tacit agreement that the charge is to be fixed at HFL 0.30 plus a small profit margin. In the order for reference the Arrondissementsrechtbank stated that if its question is answered in the affirmative, it considered that it would have to reject the application for examination of witnesses with regard to those three matters. Postbank, which disputes that it has infringed the competition rules of the Treaty, shares that opinion. That an aflir mativc reply should have such consequences docs not appear to me to Dc beyond doubt.

4 Case C-208/90 Emmott v Minister for Social Welfare and the Attorney General [1991] ECR I-4269, paragraph 16.

5 Case 222/86 UNECTEF v Heylens [1987] ECR 4097. See also the requirement for review by the courts in Case 222/84 Johnston [1986] ECR 1651.

6 Case C-67/91 Dirección General de Defensa de la Competencia v Asociación Española de Banca Privada and Others [1992] ECR I-4785.

7 Joined Cases 46/87 and 227/88 Hoechst v Commission [1989] ECR 2859.

8 Cited in footnote 5.