Opinion of Advocate General Lenz delivered on 1 June 1994

1 Original language: German.

2 OJ 1985 L 176, p. 18.

3 Why the Commission failed io take account of the French Government's letter of 12 August 1988 when it drew up this letter remains unclear.

4 That letter can probably be explained by the fact that, in the meantime, the Commission had become aware of the definitive agreements which the French Government had forwarded to it on 12 August 1988.

5 See Article 4(1) and Article 6.

6 Judgments in Case C-252/89 Commission v Luxembourg [1991] ECR I-3973 and in Case C-192/90 Commission v Spain [1991] ECR I-5933 (summary publication only in both cases).

7 See, for example, Article 8 of the agreement on aluminium.

8 See Article 3(c) of the agreement on returnable glass containers.

9 As much as 700000 tonnes should be recycled in 1990 if industrial waste is included.

10 The expression is not defined, but apparently refers to the trade associations (and their members) which are parties to the agreement.

11 Article 3(c) of the agreement.

12 As I have mentioned, the agreements relate to six kinds of packaging materials.

13 This view is based on the fact that the agreement mentions a number of quantified objectives which are to be achieved in 1990 (Article 4(3) of the agreement).

14 See sections 4.1 and 5.1 of the proposal submitted by the Commission on 15 July 1992 with a view to the adoption of a Council directive on packaging and packaging waste (COM(92) 278 final —SYN 436).

15 This is not, of course, true of the proceedings before the Court.