Opinion of Advocate General Tesauro delivered on 28 June 1994

1 Original language: Italian.

2 Case C-163/90 Legros [1992] ECR I-4625.

3 Decision concerning the dock dues in the French overseas departments (OJ 1989 L 399, p. 46).

4 See recitals 3 to 6 in the preamble to the decision at issue.

5 In his Opinion in the Legros case. Advocate General Jacobs had invited the Court to give a ruling on the validity of the 1989 decision as well, in so far as it authorized the arrangements then in force to be temporarily maintained. That suggestion was not however followed up in the judgment, on the grounds that — as pointed out earlier — the facts in the case referred to predated the decision which clearly did not have retrospective effect.

6 See, on this point, the judgment in Joined Cases 37/73 and 38/73 Sociaal Fonds voor de Diamatitarbeiders v Indiamex and Association de fait De Beider [1973] ECR 1609, and to the same effect also the judgments in Case 266/81 SIOT v Ministem delle Finanze and Others [1983] ECR 731, in particular paragraphs 16 to 19, and Joined Cases 267/81 to 269/81 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v SPI and SAMÍ [1983] ECR 801, in particular paragraphs 26 and 27.

7 See, for example, the judgment in Case 37/83 Rewe-Zentrale v Landwirtschaftskammer Rheinland [1984] ECR 1229, in particular paragraph 18.

8 Case 148/77 Hansen v Hauptzollamt Flensburg [1978] ECR 1787.

9 Joined Cases 2/62 and 3/62 Commission v Luxembourg and Belgium [1962] ECR 425, in particular p. 431-432.

10 Sec judgments in Case 24/68 Commission v Italy [1969] ECR 193, especially points 4 and 10, Joined Cases 2/69 and 3/69 Diamantarbeiders v Brachfeld [1969] ECR 211, especially points 7/8 and 11/12. See also the judgments in Case 77/72 Capolongo v Azienda Agricola Maya [1973] ECR 611, in particular points 10 and 11; Case 87/75 Conceria Damele Bresciani v Amministrazione Italiana delle Finanze [1976] ECR 129, in particular points 7 to 9; Joined Cases 80/77 and 81/77 Commissaires Réums and les Fils de Henn Ramel v Receveur des Douanes [1978] ECR 927, in particular points 24 to 26; Casc 193/85 Cooperativa Co-Frutta v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato [1987] ECR 2085, in particular paragraph 27, and Casc 61/86 United Kingdom v Commission [1988] ECR 431, in particular paragraph 9.

11 As to there being no possibility of recourse to Article 227(2) to restrict the application to the overseas departments of the rules set out in the first subparagraph of that article or to introduce a special system derogating from those rules in the regions and sectors mentioned tncrcin, academic writers arc essentially at one; see, for further bibliographical references, Dewost, Article 227, in Le Droit de la Communauté Européenne (Commentaire Megret), Volume 15, Brussels 1987, p. 474 et seq.

12 Joined Cases 80/77 and 81/77, cited in footnote 9.

13 Paragraph 35.

14 On this point, see Tizzano: Competenze della Comunità, in Trent'anni di Dintto Comunitario, 1981, p. 45 et seq.

15 As Advocate General Jacobs did in the Legros case, in which the Council had made a similar point.

16 See the judgment in Case 73/79 Commission v Italy [1980] ECR 1533, in particular paragraph 11.

17 It is significant here that the Commission itself, in the Legros case, had claimed that the measure in question was incompatible with the Treaty.

18 Law No 92/676 of 17 July 1992 (Official Journal of the French Republic of 19 July 1992, p. 9697).

19 Joined Cases C-227/91, C-318/91 and C-319/91 Ligur Carni and Others v Unità Sanitaria Locale No XV di Genova and Others [1993] ECR I-6621.

20 Cited above, especially paragraphs 37 and 38. See also the judgment in Case C-21/88 Du Pont de Nemours Italiana v Unità Sumuna Locale No 2 dì Carrara [1990] ECR I-889, in particular paragraphs 12 and 13; judgment in Joined Cases C-1/90 and C-176/90 Aragonesa de Publicidad Exterior and Publivia v Departamento de Sanidad v Segundad Social de la Generalität de Cataluña [1991] ECR I-4151, especially paragraph 24, and judgment in Case C-179/90 Merci Convenzionali Pono di Genova v Sidermgica Gabrielli [1991] ECR I-5889, especially paragraph 21.

21 Joined Cases 314/81 to 316/81 and 83/82 Procureur de la République and Comité National de Défense contre l'Alcoolisme v Alex Waterkeyn and Others; Procureur de la République v Jean Cayard and Others [1982] ECR 4337.

22 This is the judgment in Case 152/78 Commission v France [1980] ECR 2299.

23 See paragraphs 8 to 12 in Waterkeyn, cited at note 20.

24 Case 355/85 Dnancourt v Cognet [1986] ECR 3231, in particular paragraph 10. See also the judgments in Case 286/81 Oosthoek's Uitgeversmaatschappij BV [1982] ECR 4575, in particular paragraph 9; Joined Cases 80/85 and 159/85 Nederlandse Bakkerij Stichting v Edah [1986] ECR 3359, in particular paragraphs 18 to 20; Case 98/86 Ministère Pubitc v Mathot [1987] ECR 809, in particular paragraphs 7 to 9 and Case 255/86 Commission v Belgium [1988] ECR 693, in particular paragraphs 5 and 6.

25 Case 298/87 Smanor [1988] ECR 4489, in particular paragraphs 8 to 25.

26 Case 407/85 Drei Glocken and Another v USL CentroSud and Another [1988] ECR 4233, in particular, paragraphs 23 to 25.

27 I would merely refer to the recent judgments in Joined Cases C-330/90 and C-331/90 López Brea and Hidalgo Palacios [1992] ECR I-323, in particular paragraphs 7 to 9; Case C-332/90 Steen v Deutsche Bundespost [1992] ECR I-341, in particular paragraphs 8 to 12, and Case C-60/91 Batista Morais [1992] ECR I-2085, in particular paragraphs 7 to 9.

28 On this subject) for a different situation but one amenable to the same logic, see my Opinion of 26 April 1994 in Case C-130/93 Lamaire [1994] ECR I-3215, at page I-3217, pending before the Court — the subject-matter of the action being a pecuniary charge applied to agricultural products exported from Belgium — in -which, taking account of the fact that the sole objective of Articles 9 and 12 of the Treaty is to prohibit charges having equivalent effect to customs duties levied on trade between Member States, I consider a contribution such as the one at issue not to be incompatible with those provisions, if it is applied to products exported to nonmember countries.

29 On this point, see most recently the judgment in Case C-132/93 Stem [1994] ECR I-2715, especially paragraphs 8 toll.

30 Sec. most recently, the judgment in Case C-229/92 Roquette Frères [1994) ECR I-1445.

31 On this point, in addition to the Roquette Frères judgment cited in the previous footnote, see the judgments in Case 4/79 Providence Agricole de la Champagne v ONIC [1980] ECR 2823, paragraphs 44 to 46; in Case 109/79 Maïseries de Beance v ONIC [1980] ECR 2883, paragraphs 44 to 46 and in Case 145/79 Roquette Frères v French Customs Administration [1980] ECR 2917, paragraphs 51 to 53. See also the judgment in Case 112/83 Produits de maïs v Administration des Douanes et Droits Indirects [1985] ECR 719, paragraph 17.