Opinion of Advocate General Lenz delivered on 22 June 1994

1 Original language: German.

2 Moniteur belge of 4 October 1939.

3 Moniteur belge of 6 February 1981.

4 It is not absolutely clear whether the termination took effect on 31 December 1988, as, according to the order for reference, the OND considered, or at an earlier date (October 1988), in accordance with the wording of the letter of termination in conjunction with the relevant provisions of the cooperation agreement. However, this is of no relevance to the present proceedings.

5 Last paragraph of section III of the order for reference.

6 Judgment in Case C-387/92 Banco de Crédito Industrial [1994] ECR I-877, paragraph 20.

7 Sec paragraph 19 of the judgment in Banco de Crédito Industrial (cited in the preceding footnote) and the judgment in Case C-47/91 Ital y v Commission [1992] ECR I-4145. paragraph 25.

8 Judgments in Case 72/79 Commission v Italy [1980] ECR 1411, paragraphs 23, 24 and 25, Joined Cases 67/85, 6S/85 and 70/85 Van der Kooy v Commission [1988] ECR 219, paragraphs 36, 37 and 38, and Case C-303/88 Italy v Commission [1991] ECR I-1433, paragraphs 11 to 14.

9 Case 51/74 Hulst v Produktschap voor Siergewassen [1975] ECR 79; see paragraph 12 of that Judgment.

10 See, for example, the judgment in Case C-30/93 ACATEL[1994] ECR I-2305, paragraph 17.

11 See Hulst v Produktschap voor Siergewassen, loc. cit. (footnote 8).

12 Sec, for example, the judgment in Case 7/75 Mr and Mrs E v Belgian State [1975] ECR 679, paragraph 10.

13 Judgment in Casc-37/92 Vanacker and Lesage [1993] ECR I-4947, paragraph 7.

14 Sec in particular the judgment in Case C-127/92 Enderby v Frendiay Health Authority [1993] ECR I-5535, paragraph

15 See paragraph 37 of the judgment in Van der Kooy v Commission, cited in footnote 7.

16 See section 11 above.

17 Judgment in Case 120/73 Lorenz v Germany [1973] ECR 1471, par agraph 3.

18 Judgment in Joined Cases 91 and 127/83 Heineken Brouwerijen v Inspecteurs der Vennootschapsbelasting, Amsterdam and Utrecht [1984] ECR 3435. paragraph 14; judgment in Case C-301/87 France v Commission [1990] ECR I-307, paragraph 17.

19 Paragraph 4 of the judgment in Lorenz, cited in footnote 16.

20 See the judgments in Case C-301/87 France v Commission, cited in footnote 17, and in Case C-47/91 /Italy v Commission, cited in footnote 6, paragraph 24.

21 See the judgment in Case 74/76 Iarmelli v Meroni [1977] ECR 557, paragraph 12 in fine.

22 See, in addition to the judgment cited below and the judgment in Steinike and Weinlig referred to therein, the judgments in Case 77/72 Capolongo v Maya [1973] 611, in ¡anelli, cited in footnote 20, in Joined Cases C-78/90 to C-83/90 Compagnie Commerciale de l'Ouest and Others [1992] ECR I-1847, in Case 17/91 Lornoy and Others [1992] ECR I-6523, in Case C-114/91 Claeys [1992] ECR I-6559, in Joined Cases C-144/91 and C-145/91 Demoor and Others [1992] ECR I-6613, in Joined Cases C-149/91 and C-150/91 Sanders Adour and Guyomarc'h Orthez Nutrition Animale [1992] ECR I-3899, in Case C-266/91 CELBI [1993] ECR I-4337, in Case C-72/92 Scharbatke [1993] ECR I-5509 and in Case C-189/91 Kirsammer-Hack [1993] ECR I-6185.

23 Judgment in Case C-354/90 Fédération Nationale du Commerce Extérieur des Produits Alimentaires [1991] ECR I-5505, paragraphs 9 and 10.

24 Cited in section 61, first two sentences of paragraph 9.

25 Judgment in Capolongo, cited in footnote 21, paragraph 6.

26 Section 58 above.

27 Judgment in Case 61/79 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Denkavit [1980] ECR 1205, paragraph 31; see, to the same effect, the definition set out in the judgment in Banco de Crédito Industrial, cited in footnote 5, paragraph 13, on the basis of the case-law on the ECSC Treaty.

28 My emphasis.

29 Cited in section 61; paragraph 21 of the judgment (my emphasis).

30 See the judgment in Case C-387/92 Banco de Crédito Industrial, cited in footnote 5.

31 Judgment in Case 84/82 Germany v Commission [1984] ECR 1451, paragraph 12, and judgment in Case C-313/90 CIRFS and Others v Commission [1993] ECR I-1125, paragraph 25.

32 See section 62 above.

33 See, in particular, the judgment in Lorenz, cited in footnote 16, paragraph 8. This has been consistently held since the judgment in Case 6/64 Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 585, at 596; sec most recently the judgment in Kirsammer-Hack, cited in footnote 21, paragraph 14.

34 Sec the judgments in lancili, cited in footnote 20, paragraph 12, Steinike and Weinlig, cited in section 61, paragraph 10, Compagnie Commerciale de l'Ouest, paragraph 33, Sanders, paragraph 25, Lornoy, paragraph 29, and Scharbatke, paragraph 19, all cited in footnote 21.

35 Judgment in Capolongo, cited in footnote 21, paragraph 6 in fine; judgment in Steimke and Weinlig, cited in the preceding footnote.

36 See the judgment in Case C-188/92 TWD Texttlwerke Deggendorf [1994] ECR I-833.

37 If there is no provision within the meaning of Article 87 in the area in question, then, in the absence of a decision of the national authorities under Article 88 or of the Commission under Article 89(2), Anicle 85(1) is not directly applicable: judgment in Joined Cases 209 to 213/89 Ministère Puhlic v Astes [1986] ECR 1425, paragraphs 60 to 69.

38 Judgment in Case 127/73 BRT v SABAM [1974] ECR 51, paragraph lb; judgment in Case C-234/89 Delimttis [1991] ECR I-935, paragraph 45.

39 This consideration seems to me to inform the judgments in Case C-198/89 Cook [1993] ECR I-2487 and Case C-225/91 M.ttra [1993] ECR I-3203, albeit in a different connection.

40 Sec section 44 above.

41 Cf. the Opinion of Mr Advocate General Darmon in Joined Cases 166/86 and 220/86 Insh Cement v Commission [1988] ECR 6487, sections 2) to 31.

42 In section 86 above.

43 See the ninth recital in the preamble to Commission Directive 80/723/EEC of 25 June 1980 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings, OJ 1980 L 195, p. 35.

44 Section 66 above and footnote 26.

45 Cf. the Opinion of Mr Advocate General Darmon in Case C-185/91 Reiff [1993] ECR I-5823, paragraphs 33 to 38, which contains examples from the case-law confirming this analysis of the EC Treaty.

46 See, in particular, the judgments in Case 234/84 Belgium v Commission [1986] ECR 2263, paragraph 14, Case C-142/87 Belgium v Commission [1990] ECR I-959, paragraph 29, Case C-305/89 Italy v Commission [1991] ECR I-1603, paragraphs 19 to 23, Case C-261/89 Italy v Commission [1991] ECR I-4437, paragraph 8.

47 Sections 60 to 74 above.

48 In the correspondence between the Belgian Government and the Commission, the Belgian Government argued from outset that the aid in question was existing aid. The Commission did not question that view.

49 Judgment in Case C-301/87 France v Commutimi [1990] ECR I-307, paragraphs 18 to 23.

50 See the judgments in Case 48/72 Brasserie de Haecht v Wiikin and Janssen [1973] ECR 77, Case 127/73 BRT v SABAM [19741 ECR 51, Case 99/79 Lamame v Etos[1980] ECR 2511 and Delinutis, cited in footnote 37.

51 See Notice 93/C 39/05 on collaboration between national courts and the Commission in applying Articles 85 and 86 of the EEC Treaty (OJ 1993 C 39, p. 6), in which the Commission sets out the various possibilities on the basis of the judgments cited in the previous footnote.

52 See footnote 37.

53 Paragraph 53 of the judgment in Delimitis; my emphasis.

54 Case 120/73 Lorenz v Germany, cited in footnote 16, which was confirmed, for instance, in Case 84/82 Germany v Commission, cited in footnote 30.

55 Paragraph 4 of the judgment in Lorenz.

56 Paragraph 5 of the judgment in Lorenz.

57 Paragraph 2 of the operative part and paragraph 6 of the judgment.

58 Footnote 48.

59 My emphasis.