Opinion of Advocate General Darmon delivered on 16 March 1994

1 Original language: French.

2 That article has been amended by Article G(16) of the Treaty on European Union. Transport now falls within the cooperation procedure laid down by Article 189c of the EC Treaty.

3 COM(87) 31 final (OJ 1987 C 77, p. 13)

4 Case 13/83 Parliament v Council [1985] ECR 1513.

5 Third recital.

6 Article 2, my italics.

7 See Article 3.

8 OJ 1988 C 49, pp. 85, 121, 122.

9 OJ 1988 C 94, p. 109.

10 Ibid., p. 125.

11 Paragraph 4.

12 Com(88) 596 final (OJ 1988 C 301, p. 8).

13 OJ 1992 L 251, p. 1.

14 See the letter from the President of the Parliament reproduced as annex 6 to the application, which the Council states it never received (paragraph 11 of the defence).

15 That phrase is added to the second recital; my italics.

16 Page 4 of the defence.

17 Case C-65/90 Parliament v Council [1992] ECR I-4593, in which the Court annulled Council Regulation (EEC) No 4059/89 of 21 December 1989 laying down the conditions under which non-resident earners may operate national road haulage services within a Member State (OJ 1989 L 390, p. 3).

18 Case C-70/88 Parliament v Council [1990] ECR I-2041, at paragraph 27.

19 See the third paragraph of Article 173 of the EC Treaty, as amended by Article G(53) of the Treaty on European Union.

20 Case C-65/90, referred to in note 16 above, at paragraph 13.

21 Ibid., at paragraph 14. See also Case C-316/91 Parliament v Council [1994] ECR I-625, at paragraph 16.

22 Case 138/79 Roquette Frères v Council [1980] ECR 3333, at paragraph 33 of the judgment; Case 139/79 Maizena v Council [1980] ECR 3393, at paragraph 34 of the judgment.

23 In a resolution on relations between the Parliament and the Council adopted on 9 July 1981, the Parliament urges the Council to repeat its consultation of Parliament under the legislative procedure whenever the Commission amends its original proposal on which Parliament has already delivered an opinion and such amendments have not been considered by Parliament(OJ 1981 C 234, p. 52, at paragraph 11(b)). See also Article 62 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament.

24 Case C-65/90, referred to above, at paragraph 16. See also the judgment in Case 41/69 ACF Chemiefarma v Commission [1970] ECR 661, at paragraph 178, and the judgment in Case 817/79 Buyl v Commission [1982] ECR 245, at paragraph 23.

25 At paragraph 9 of its reply.

26 See paragraph 25 of the application and paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 of the reply.

27 Article 2(1).

28 Article 9.

29 Article 12 of Regulation No 2454/92.

30 [1992] ECR I-4593, 4611 at paragraph 47.

31 [1992] ECR I-4593, 4622, at paragraph 19 of the judgment.

32 The Spanish Government maintains that no substantial amendment takes place when the objective pursued by the Community regulation has not been changed between the proposal and the definitive text. It argues that there is an identity of object between the two, namely the elimination of nationality restrictions on non-resident carriers (p. 7 of the statement in intervention). In my opinion, that criterion does not take account of the Court's case-law on the matter (see paragraph 16 of the judgment in Case C-65/90 and the cases referred to therein).

33 See paragraphs 6 and 7 above.

34 Statement in intervention, p. 8.

35 Paragraph 19.

36 Referred to in note 16 above.

37 Council Regulation (EEC) No 3118/93 of 25 October 1993 laying down the conditions under which non-resident carriers may operate national road haulage services within a Member State (OJ 1993 L 279, p. 1).

38 Paragraph 22 of the defence. The Spanish Government makes the same argument at page 12 of its statement in intervention.

39 Paragraph 31 of the defence.

40 Paragraph 25 of the defence.

41 Case 68/86 United Kingdom v Council [1988] ECR 855, at paragraph 38.

42 Opinion in Case C-316/91 Parliament v Council, referred to in note 20 above, at paragraph 25.

43 Statement in intervention, p. 11.

44 End of paragraph 27 and paragraph 29 of the defence.

45 Paragraph 7 of the defence.

46 Ibid., paragraph 8.

47 Paragraph 25 of the application.

48 Case 20/85 Roviello v Landesversicherungsanstalt Schwaben [1988] ECR 2805, 2842 at the end of paragraph 11 of the Opinion.

49 See Annex I, paragraph 9, on p. 12 of the defence.

50 Paragraph 56

51 Judgment in Case C-65/90 Parliament v Council, referred to above, at paragraph 20.

52 See paragraph 64 of my Opinion and paragraph 20 of the judgment in that latter case.