Opinion of Mr Advocate General Darmon delivered on 27 October 1993

1 Original language: French.

2 Case 4/79 [1980] ECR 2823, Case 109/79 [1980] ECR 2883 and Case 145/79 [1980] ECR 2917.

3 Case 112/83 [1985] ECR 719.

4 Case 33/84 [1985] ECR 1605.

5 See the Commission's observations in the Société de Produits de Maïs case.

6 For the text of those questions, see the Report for the Hearing (II, 1, in fine).

7 OJ 1975 L 276, p. 7; adopted under Council Regulation (EEC) No 974/71 of 12 May 1971 on certain measures of conjunctural policy to be taken in agriculture following the temporary widening of the margins of fluctuation of the currencies of certain Member States (OJ 1971 L 106, p. 1).

8 Commission's observations, p. 6.

9 The MCAs on the derived products in question exceed by 23.27% the MCA on the basic product, maize, according to the observations of the plaintiff in the main proceedings, p. 3. In its judgment in Case 46/84 Nordgetreide [1985] ECR 3127 the Court held that the difference of 1.45% between the MCAs applicable to maize and those applicable to derived products was a negligible one ana did not affect the validity of the regulation in issue (paragraphs 25, 28 and 29). The difference was about 30% in Cases 4/79 and 109/79 and about 12% in Case 145/79 (paragraph 34 of the Nordgetreide judgment). In those three cases it was regarded as excessive enough to justify a finding of invalidity.

10 Commission's observations, p. 6.

11 Ibid., pages 15 and 16.

12 Regulation (EEC) No 2829/75 of the Commission of 31 October 1975 altering the monetary compensatory amounts (OJ 1975 L 284, p. 1), Commission Regulation (EEC) No 217/76 of 6 February 1976 changing the monetary compensatory amounts following changes in exchange rates for the Italian Lira (OJ 1976 L 34, p. 1), and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 512/76 of 5 March 1976 altering the monetary compensatory amounts (OJ 1976 L 60 p. 1).

13 Commission Regulation (EEC) No 572/76 of 15 March 1976 fixing the monetary compensatory amounts and certain rates for their application (OJ 1976 L 68, p. 5).

14 Article 4.

15 Commission Regulation (EEC) No 618/76 of 18 March 1976 altering the monetary compensatory amounts (OJ 1976 L 75, p. 1).

16 Point 2 of the operative provisions.

17 [1981] ECR 1191.

18 Paragraph 13; the same formulation is used in paragraph 16 of the Société des Produits de Maïs judgment cited above.

19 Masclet, J. C, La jurisprudence Roquette à l'épreuve des juridictions françaises?, RTDE, 1986, p. 161.

20 Sec paragraph 16 of the International Chemical Corporation judgment cited above, and the case-law referred to there. Sec also paragraph 44 of the Providence Agricole de la Champagne and Matseries de Bcaiice judgments and paragraph 51 of the Roquette Frères judgment and the case-law cited there, and also mv opinion in the Société des Produits de Mats case, paragraph 5.

21 On the links between proceedings on legality and preliminary references where validity is assessed, sec Mcrtcns de Wilmars, J., Annulation et Appréciation de Validité dans le Traité CEE: Convergence ou Divergence? (Mélanges H. Kutscher, 1981, p. 283). Sec also paragraph 17 of the Société des Produits de Mais judgment.

22 The Court recognizes that preliminary rulings as to interpretation have ex tunc effect: sec the judgments in Case 43/75 Defrcnne II [1976] ECR 455, Case 61/79 Dcnkavit Italiana [1980] ECR 1205, at paragraphs 16 and 17, and Joined Cases 66/79, 127/79 and 128/79 Salumi [1980] ECR 1237, at paragraphs 9 and 10.

23 R. Jolict, Le droit institutionnel des Communautés européennes — Le contentieux, p. 226. Sec, for example, tne judgment in Case 130/79 Express Dairy Foods [1980] ECR 1887, Opinion of Mr Capotorti. The MCAs collected by the national authorities on the basis of Community regulations declared invalid must be repaid. Sec also the solution implicit in the judgments in Joined Cases 117/76 and 16/77 Ruckdeschcl [1977] ECR 1753, at paragraph 13 (... the existence of several courses of action ... to make good any damage sustained by those concerned ...) and Joined Cases 124/76 and 20/77 Moulins et Huileries de Ponl-à-Motisson [1977] ECR 1795, at paragraph 29.

24 [1979] ECR 2955.

25 Ibid., p. 2991. See also the judgment in Joined Cases 256/80, 257/80, 265/80, 267/80, 5/81 and 51/81 and 282/82 Birra Wahrer v Council and Commission, at paragraph 33.

26 See my Opinion in the Société des Produits de Mais case, paragraph 11.

27 Case 41/84 Pinna [1986] ECR 1, at paragraphs 26 to 30. Only employed persons who had already brought legal proceedings or made an equivalent claim prior to the date of the judgment were able to benefit from the ex tunc effect of the finding that Article 73(2) of Regulation No 1408/71 was invalid.

28 Cited above; see references in note 21 above.

29 Series A No 31.

30 Ibid., paragraph 58.

31 Paragraph 45 of the Providence Agricole de la Champagne and Maïseries de Beattce judgments and paragraph 52 of the Roquette judgment.

32 Paragraph 17.

33 Cited above; sec references in note 21 above.

34 Paragraph 26 of the Pinna judgment. Compare paragraph 72 of the Defrawe II judgment and paragraph 17 of the Denkavit Italiana judgment: it is only exceptionally...

35 See paragraphs 17 and 18 of the Société des Produits de Mais judgment. See on the point my Opinion in that case, paragraph 12. Compare paragraph 18 of the Denkavit Italiana judgment, cited above, and paragraph 13 of the judgment in Case 309/85 Barra [1988] ECR 355.

36 See my Opinion in the Société des Produits de Mais casc, paragraph 11.

37 D. Simon, L'effet dans le temps des arrêts préjudiciels de la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes: enjeu ou prétexte d'une nouvelle guerre des juges?, Mélanges Pescatore, Baden-Baden 1987, p. 663.

38 See paragraph 42 of the Providence Agricole de la Champagne and Maïseries de Beauce judgments.

39 See paragraph 45 of the Providence Agricole de la Champagne and Maïseries de Beauce judgments and paragraph 52 of the Roquette judgment.

40 D. Simon, op. cit., p. 651; J. Boulouis, commenting on a judgment by the Tribunal d'Instance, Lille of 15 July 1981, Recueil Dalloz, 1982, J, p. 10; H. Labayle, La Cour de justice des Communautés et les effets d'une déclaration d'invalidité, RTDE 1982, p. 484; J. C. Maselet, op. cit, p. 161.

41 G. Isaac, La modulation par la Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes des effets dans le temps de ses arrêts d'invalidité, CDE, 1987, p. 444.

42 See paragraph 19 of the Société des Produits de Maïs judgment. That company had lodged a claim for repayment after the Court's judgment of 15 October 1980 in Case 145/79 and was thus unable in any event to benefit from the possibility of obtaining repayment of the sums paid under the invalid regulations.

43 Paragraph 18.

44 U. Everling, Der Ausschluß der Rückwirkung bei der Feststellung der Ungültigkeit von Verordnungen durch den Gerichtshof der EG, Europarecht Ettergierecht Wirtschaftsrecht: festschrift fur Bodo Borner, 1992, p. 65.

45 See the Piima judgment cited above, at paragraph 29, and as the most recent authority the judgment in Joined Cases C-38/90 and C-151/90 Lomas [1992] ECR I-1782, at paragraph 25, which repeats word for word the text of paragraph 18 of the Société des Produits de Mais judgment.

46 See the Defreime II judgment; the judgment in Case 24/86 Blaizot [1988] ECR 379, at paragraph 28; that in Case C-262/88 Barber [1990] ECR I-1889, at paragraph 41; in Case C-163/90 Legros [1992] ECR I-4625, at paragraph 30; and in Case C-109/91 Ten Oever, [1993] ECR I-4879. On the connections between preliminary rulings of interpretation and judgments on validity, see W. Alexander, The Temporal Effects of Preliminary Rulings, Yearbook of European Law 1988, vol. 8, p. 25.

47 D. Simon, op. cit., p. 864.

48 Ibid., p. 665.

49 Observations submitted on behalf of Société des Produits de Maïs, pp. 11 and 12 of the typed version.

50 Direct actions for annulment in particular are open to them only under strict conditions.

51 Rivista di diritto internazionale, 1989, p. 103.

52 Altering the monetary compensatory amounts (OJ 1980 L 156, p. 1).

53 Case 33/84, [1985] ECR 1605.

54 Paragraph 20.

55 Judgment of the Constitutional Court, paragraph 1 of the as to the facts part, my emphasis.

56 Ibid., my emphasis.

57 Ibid., paragraph 3.2 of the as to the law part.

58 Ibid., paragraph 4.2 of the as to the law part, my emphasis.

59 Paragraph 6 in fine.

60 Article 19 of the German Basic Law of 23 May 1949, Article 24 of the Spanish constitution of 29 December 1978, Article 20 of the Greek constitution of 9 June 1975, Article 24 of the Italian constitution of 27 December 1947 and Article 20 of the Portuguese constitution of 2 March 1976. On the right of effective access to a court in French constitutional law, see the study by T. S. Renoux, JCP, 1993, I, 3675.

61 Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority .... See also Article 6 of the Convention

62 See the judgments in Case 222/84 Johnston [1986] ECR 1651, at paragraphs 18 and 19; Case 222/86 Heylens [1987] ECR 4097, at paragraph 14; Case 304/89 Vlassopoulou [1991] ECR I-2357, at paragraph 22; Case C-104/91 Agmrre Borrell and Others [1992] ECR I-3003, at paragraph 15; and Case C-19/92 Kraus, [1993] ECR I-1663 , at paragraph 40.

63 The fact that the Court set great store by this principle is exemplified in its case-law on objections on the grounds of parallel remedies, which are accepted only if those remedies in the domestic law effectively ensure protection for individuals aggrieved by measures of Community institutions (judgment in Case 20/88 Roquette [1989] ECR 1553, at paragraph 15, my emphasis. Sec also on this point my Opinion in that case, paragraph 15).

64 See paragraph 35 above.

65 Commission's observations, pp. 14 and 15.

66 Case 145/79 Roquette, point 2 of the operative provisions.

67 See paragraph 11 above.

68 Paragraph 5 in fine.

69 Case 41/69, [1970] ECR 683.

70 Paragraph 19.

71 Express Dairy Foods judgment, paragraph 12.

72 Commission's observations, p. 11.

73 Pamgraphs 12 and 13 of the Opinion.

74 Ibid., paragraph 13.

75 Sec, for example, the Providence Agricole de In Champagne judgment, paragraph 45.

76 See the Maïseries de Beaiice judgment, paragraph 42.

77 Commission's observations, p. 12. The Commission confirmed this point at the hearing.

78 See on this point the observations of D. Simon, op. cit., pp. 663-664.

79 See J. C. Masclet, op. cit., p. 174.

80 See the order of the Finanzgericht, p. 5.

81 Paragraph 13 in fine of the Opinion.

82 Cmc 68/79 Just [1980] ECR 501, at paragraph 26. See also the Express Dairy Foods judgment, paragraphs 13 and 14, and the judgment in Case 199/82 San Giorgio [1983] ECR 3595, at paragraph 13. See also my Opinion in the Société des Produits de Mais case, paragraph 13.

83 Judgment in Joined Cases 142/80 and 143/80 Essevi and Salcngo [1981] ECR 1413, at paragraph 35.