lagen.
EU-domstolen

Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 23 March 1994

CELEX
61992CC0278
Typ
EU-domstolen

Källa

1 Original language: English.

2 OJ 1992 L 171. p. 54.

3 Case 120/73 [1973] ECR 1471, paragraph 4 of the judgment; see also Case 84/82 Germany v Commission [1984] ECR 1451, paragraph 11, and other cases cited there.

4 Decision 92/317, part IV, sixth paragraph.

5 Case 234/84 [1986] ECR 2263.

6 Ibid., paragraph 14 of the judgment.

7 Spain sometimes quotes the precise figure stated in paragraph IS and sometimes rounds the figure off.

8 Case C-303/S8 [1991] ECR I-1433.

9 Despina Schina, State Aids wider the EEC Treaty — Articles 92 to 94, Oxford, 1987, p. 15, paragraph 50; the view is refuted by Wenig in Groeben, Thiesing and Ehlermann (eds.), Kommentar zum EWG Vertrap, 4th edition, p. 2645, paragraph 5; see also Bellamy and Child, Common Market Law of Competition, 3rd edition, paragraph 14-004, and Handler, Ottervanger and Slot, EC State Aids, 1993, p. 21, paragraph 2.6.

10 Case 730/79 [1980] ECR 2671, paragraph 11 of the judgment.

11 Case 102/87 France v Commission [1988] ECR 4067, paragraph 19 of the judgment.

12 Case C-142/87 Belgium v Commission (Tubemeuse) [1990] ECR I-959, paragraph 35 of the judgment.

13 Case 323/82 [1984] ECR 3809.

14 Ibid., paragraph 39 of the judgment.

15 Case C-301/87 [1990] ECR I-307, paragraph 49 of the judgment; see also Philip Monis (cited above, note 9), paragraphs 17 and 24, and Case 310/85 Denfil v Commission [1987] ECR 901, paragraph IS.

16 OJ 1979 C 31, p. 9.

17 On this point the French version of the decision does not concur with the Spanish and English versions. The Spanish text is the only authentic one.

18 Case C-142/87, cited above in note 11, paragraph 66 of the judgment.

19 Case C-5/89 [1990] ECR I-3437.

20 Ibid., paragraph 17 of the judgment.

21 Ibid., paragraph 14 of the judgment.

22 Cited above in note 14.

23 OJ 1992 L 172, p. 76.

24 Article 5 simply states that the decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Spain.

25 Cited above in note 14.

26 See Case C-142/87, cited above in note 11, paragraphs 58 to 63 of the judgment.

27 OJ 1992 L 176, p. 57.