Opinion of Advocate General Tesauro delivered on 26 January 1994

1 Original language: Italian.

2 The essential details of the preamble to the decision, and its operative part, are set out in a Commission communication published in Official Journal 1989 C 334, p. 8.

3 The text of the regulation is published in BGBl 1989 I, p. 2235.

4 OJ 1991 L 85, p. 34.

5 See, in that connection, Flynn, How will Article 100A(4) work? A comparison with Article 93, in CMLR 1987, p. 689 et seq.; Ehlermann, The internal market following the Single European Act, in CMLR 1987, p. 361 et seq.; Gulmann, The Single European Act; some remarks from a Danish perspective, in CMLR 1987, p. 31 et seq.; Jacqué, Les mesures dérogatoires unilatérales dans le marché intérieur: l'article 100A(4), /õrnades europees de Pasqua, Patronat Català Pro Europa, p. 64 et seq.; Langeheine, Le rapprochement des législations nationales selon l'article 100A du Traité CEE: l'harmonisation communautaire face aux exigences de protection naionale, RMC 1989, p. 347 et seq.; Mattera, Il mercato unico europeo, Turin, 1990, p. 168 et seq.; and Rossi, Il buon funzionamento del mercato comune, Milan 1990, p. 165 et seq.

6 Case 120/78 Revje v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein [1979] ECR 649.

7 See in that connection the judgments in Case C-347/88 Commission v Greece [1990] ECR I-4747, in particular paragraph 58, Case 72/83 Campus Oil Limited [1984] ECR 2727, in particular paragraphs 37-46, and Case 153/78 Commission v Germany [1979] ECR 2555, in particular paragraphs 4 and 5.

8 That applies with greater force where the State fails entirely to notify to the Commission the national rules which it intends applying by way of derogation in accordance with Article 100A(4).

9 As occurred in the present case, in which Germany had given notice to the Commission well before the time-limit for the implementation in domesuc law of the harmonization measures under the directive of its intention to continue to apply the national rules, and the decision to confirm the rules was not made until several months after the expiry of the appointed period.

10 The German Government considers that the application is admissible merely because the Commission's confirmation measure has all the characteristics of a decision under the fourth paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty and therefore constitutes an act of a Community institution for the purposes of the first paragraph of Article 173; this solution would therefore be valid regardless of the reply to be given to the question whether the Commission is entitled under Article 100A(4) to adopt a formal decision.

11 See the judgments in Case 22/70 Commission v Council [1971] ECR 263, in particular paragraphs 34-55, Case C-366/88 France v Commission [1990] ECR I-3571, in particular paragraph 8, and Case C-312/90 Spain v Commission [1992] ECR I-4117, in particular paragraphs II-20.

12 See, inter alia the judgments in Case 158/80 Rewe [1981] ECR 1805, in particular paragraphs 25 and 26, Case 185/83 Rijksuniversiteit te Groningen [1984] ECR 3623, in particular paragraph 38, Case 250/84 Eridania [1986] ECR 117, in particular paragraph 37, and Case 350/88 Delacre and Others [1990] ECR I-395, in particular paragraph 15.

13 See for example the judgment in Case 185/83 Rijksuniversiteit te Groningen, cited above, paragraph 38, and Case C-213/87 Gemeente Amsterdam and VIA [1990] ECR I-221, summary publication.

14 See the judgment in Joined Cases 209-215/78 and 218/78 van Landewyck [1980] ECR 3125, in particular paragraph 66.

15 See the judgment in Joined Cases 296/82 and 318/82 Netherlands and Leeuwarder Papierwarenfabriek [1985] ECR 809, in particular paragraph 19.

16 See the judgments in Case 92/77 An Bord Bainne [1978] ECR 497, in particular paragraphs 36 and 37, and Case 185/83 Rijksuniversiteit te Groningen, cited above, paragraph 38.

17 See for example the judgments in Case 185/83 Rijksuniversiteit te Groningen, citea above, paragraph 39; Case 102/87 France v Commission [1988] ECR 4067, in particular paragraphs 29 and 30; Case 213/87 Gemeente Amsterdam ana VIA, cited above, and Case C-350/88 Detacre and Others, cited above, in particular paragraphs 15 to 19.