C-111/88

The Association clearly did not satisfy that condition The decisions were intended to 2 Turning to the question whether the put an end to all export aid in the candied conditions for the application of Decision fruit peel sector with effect from 4 February 86/614 had been met, the Advocate General 1988, irrespective of the undertakings made in particular the following obser­ exporting candied fruit peel which were in vations : receipt of such aid or which might receive it subsequently It was therefore not a case of a 'closed' group of persons who could be 'It should be apparent from the foregoing individually distinguished once and for all at that I think that the Commission was the time of the decisions, but rather of an entitled to consider that the conditions 'open' group of persons defined on the basis governing the application of Article 3 of of their objective capacity as market Decision 86/614/EEC were fulfilled in so participants in a particular sector The mere far as for the application of the first two fact that they all exported candied fruit peel conditions it is sufficient that there should was not sufficient to establish that they were be a threat of major changes in trade flows * Original language: Dutch 4 — Sec the judgment of 17 January 1985 in Case 11/82 1 — OJ 1988 L 218 p 19 Piraiki Patruki v Commiaion [1985] ECR 227 2 — OJ 1988 L 325 p 58 paragraph 14 3 — See the judgment of 1 July 1965 in Joined Cases 106 and 5 — Sec the judgment of 14 July 1983 in Case 231/82 Spijker 107/63 Töpfer v Commission [1965] ECR 405, and of 18 Kwasten v Commission [1983] ECR 2559 paragraph 10 November 1975 in Case 100/74 CAM v Commission [1975) and of 6 October 1982 in Case 307/81 Alumine v Council ECR 1393 and Commission [1982] ECR 3463

It must also be borne in mind that the legal basis of the contested decision is to be found in Decision 86/614 and, indirectly, in 'The requirement of "consultation with the Article 108(3) of the Treaty That provision interested parties" set out in Article 3 of of the Treaty confers a not inconsiderable Decision 86/614 is an application of the discretion on the Commission as regards more general principle of the right to be both the principle and the conditions and heard, which means that the Commission manner of implementation of aid measures is obliged to inform the Member State permitted in the particular case, which in concerned about any complaint received themselves are incompatible with Articles 92 and about the factual circumstances cited in to 94 of the Treaty and therefore must the complaint which might culminate in a remain very exceptional The need for such decision adversely affecting that Member discretion is all the greater where it is a State In accordance with that principle the question of assessing the various sectors of a Commission must afford the "interested national economy on the basis of Article 3 parties" the opportunity to make known of Decision 86/614 The Commission is their views on the accuracy and relevance of then faced with the difficulty of collecting the facts and circumstances alleged and on detailed data for each of those sectors sepa­ the documents on which the Commission 7 8 rately 6and with the desirability of acting has based or proposes to base its decision swiftly in certain cases However, that does not entail the settlement of a dispute between the State taking protective measures and the undertaking complaining about the effects of those measures; in other words, the Commission does not have to weigh the various points of view against each other but must use the On the basis, inter alia, of that information obtained during consultation consideration I take the view that the with the interested parties in order to take Commission was entitled to consider that its decision on the presence or absence of the conditions governing the application of the conditions governing the application of Article 3 were fulfilled ' Article 3 with full knowledge of the facts '

I- 1563