C-80/99

OPINION OF MR TIZZANO — JOINED CASES C-80/99, C-81/99 AND C-82/99

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL TIZZANO delivered on 25 January 2001 1

1. The Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative appropriate, therefore, to consider briefly Court), Frankfurt am Main, Federal the complex EC legislation on the subject. Republic of Germany, has referred a num- ber of questions to the Court pursuant to Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Arti- cle 234 EC) for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 178 and the sec- ond paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 and the second 3. As you will be aware, the existence of paragraph of Article 288 EC) and of surpluses in the market for milk products Council Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 of led the Council to adopt Regulation (EEC) 22 July 1993 providing for an offer of No 1078/77 of 17 May 1977 introducing a compensation to certain producers of milk system of premiums for the non-marketing and milk products temporarily prevented of milk and milk products and for the from carrying on their trade (hereinafter: conversion of dairy herds. 3 The Regulation 'Regulation No 2187/93'). 2 provided for payment of a premium to producers who undertook not to market milk or milk products from their holdings for a period of five years.

Legal background 4. However, those measures soon proved unsuitable for dealing with production surpluses, leading the Council to introduce the scheme known as the 'additional levy': firstly with Council Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 of 31 March 1984 amending 2. The national proceedings giving rise to Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 on the com- this order for reference are part of the well- mon organisation of the market in milk and publicised litigation concerning implemen- milk products, 4 and, subsequently, with tation of the milk quota scheme set up Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March under the common organisation of the 1984 adopting general rules for the appli- markets in milk and milk products. It is cation of the levy referred to in Article 5c

8. In the light of that case-law the Council, 6. To comply with those judgments, the in Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91 of Council accordingly adopted Regulation 13 June 1991 amending Regulation (EEC) No 764/89 of 20 March 1989 No 857/84 adopting general rules for the amending Regulation No 857/84 adopting application of the levy referred to in general rules for the application of the levy Article 5c of Regulation No 804/68 in the 11 referred to in Article 5c of Regulation milk and milk products sector, once No 804/68 in the milk and milk products again amended Article 3a to allow a spe­ sector. 8 In particular, it inserted in that cific reference quota to be allocated also to Regulation a new Article 3a which allowed producers who had previously been exclu­ ded (the SLOM II system).

5 — OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13. 6 — Case 120/86 [1988] ECR 2321. 9 — Case C-189/89 |1990| ECR I-4539. 7 — Case 170/86 ( 1988) ECR 2355. 10 — Case C-217/89 Į1990) ECR I-4585. 8 — OJ 1989 L 84. p. 2. 11 —OJ 1991 L 150, p. 35.

I - 7215

OPINION OF MR TIZZANO — JOINED CASES C-80/99, C-81/99 AND C-82/99

12. It provides, firstly, that producers affected should present an application for compensation, in accordance with the cri- teria set out in Articles 2 to 5 of the Regulation, to the authority designated by each Member State pursuant to Article 10. 10. The complexity of the issue and the large number of producers affected by that judgment led the Council and the Commis- sion to publish Communication 92/ C 198/04. 13 They announced their inten- The tenth recital of the Regulation states tion of adopting practical compensation that, 'the competent authorities of the criteria for producers affected and under- Member States shall act, on behalf of the took, until the criteria were adopted, not to Community and the Commission by virtue invoke expiry of the period of limitation of a mandate, which has to do only with pursuant to Article 43 of the EC Statute of the execution, in compliance with the the Court against producers entitled to provisions of this Regulation, of the admin- compensation. This, however, was on con- istrative tasks necessary for its implementa- dition that that entitlement was not already tion'. time-barred on the date of publication of the Communication or the date when the

12 — Joined Cases C-104/89 and C-37/90 Mulder and Others v Council and Commission [1992] ECR I-3061, hereinafter 'Mulder IV. Article 6 provides that the national author- 13 — OJ 1992 C 198, p. 4. ity is to determine the annual quantity in I - 7216

FLEMMER AND OTHERS

respect of which compensation is due; that of any loss within the meaning of Arti- authority, under Article 11, is to check the cle 1.' accuracy of the information provided by the producer and is to calculate the amount of the compensation on the basis of the quantity and the period in respect of which compensation is due, using the amounts specified in the Annex. The financing of the payments made pur- suant to the Regulation is deemed, under Article 16, to be intervention within the meaning of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of 21 April 1970 on the Under Article 14, financing of the common agricultural pol- icy. 14

14. More specifically, the BLE held in inherited the holding from her late husband Flemmer (C-80/99) and Leitensdorfer Mr Wurm. The latter, however, had in turn (C-82/99) that the definitive special refer- undertaken not to sell milk and was there- ence quantity had been wrongly allocated fore no longer a producer. The definitive from the outset. special reference quantity allocated on 9 November 1992 to Mrs Wurm (and subsequently transferred from her to the other tenant on 1 April 1993) was conse- quently withdrawn by the competent Prin- cipal Customs Office from 1 April 1996. The applicant brought an appeal (still The BLE held, in the first case, that the pending) against that decision in the conditions under Article 3 a of Regulation Finanzgericht (Finance Court), Munich, 857/84 had not been met, because, on Bavaria. In the meantime, by letter of further examination of the facts, it was 5 February 1996, the BLE terminated the discovered that the milk delivered on the compensation agreement concluded with basis of a provisional special reference the applicant Mrs Leitensdorfer with quantity for delivery had not been pro- immediate effect, in accordance with the duced in the holding of the applicant and first sentence of Paragraph 60 of the that, therefore, the applicant had been VwVfG, on the grounds that the former wrongly allocated a definitive special refer- producer (Mrs Wurm) had delayed resump- ence quantity. By letter of 27 June 1996, tion of milk production, but the applicant therefore, the BLE terminated the compen- contested that decision, claiming that the sation agreement with immediate effect, grounds for the termination of the agree- within the meaning of the first sentence of ment (delayed resumption of production) Paragraph 60 of the Verwaltungsverfah- were already known to the BLE before the rensgesetz (Law on Administrative Proce- conclusion of the agreement. dure, 'the VwVfG') by reason of the fact that the basis for the measure no longer existed. The applicant contested the deci- sion before the national court, maintaining that he personally was a producer and that he had been allocated a definitive special reference quantity by irrevocable decision of the Hauptzollamt (Principal Customs Office).

portional reference quantity to the national Article 178 and the second paragraph of reserve on the grounds of the protection of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now Arti- legitimate expectations of the applicant and cle 235 and the second paragraph of Arti- of the tenant to whom the reference cle 288 EC respectively). quantity had meanwhile been transferred. The BLE therefore held that the conditions set out in the Regulation for compensation to be granted were no longer met and refused payment, making a new offer to Mrs Christoffel for a greatly reduced sum. In support of that argument, the referring court recalls in particular the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 April 1997 which states that, in adopting Regulation No 2187/93, 'the Council has in fact opened up a new avenue for compensation to producers entitled to compensation', and that the regulation 'as far as producers are concerned... is in the nature of a proposal Questions for preliminary ruling by way of settlement, acceptance of which is optional, and constitutes an alternative to judicial resolution of the dispute'. 15

17. The Verwaltungsgericht, Frankfurt am Main, held that all three cases outlined above raised questions of Community law requiring a preliminary ruling by the Court. Therefore, if a milk producer accepts In brief, the particular question about before the deadline an offer of compensa- which the Verwaltungsgericht was unsure tion communicated to him in the name and was whether the disputes outlined above on behalf of the Council and the Commis- came under the jurisdiction of the Court of sion by the national competent authority, Justice or the national court, and whether the national court believes that a contract, the answer given might have consequences or a compensation agreement, has been (and if so, which consequences) as regards made between the producer concerned and the law to be applied. the Community institutions, an agreement defined as subject to public law.

We have here a case of contractual liability of the Community institutions which, under the first paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now the first paragraph of Article 288 EC), — and in the absence of a specific arbitration clause under Arti- '(a) Is the second paragraph of Article 215 cle 181 of the EC Treaty (now Article 238 of the EC Treaty and Article 178 of the EC) — accordingly falls within the juris- EC Treaty, in conjunction with the diction of the national court. provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93, to be interpreted as meaning that the Court of Justice also has jurisdiction in disputes which derive from a contract concluded by the competent national authority in the name and on behalf of the Council and 20. However, a ruling given by the Court of Commission in accordance with Coun- First Instance with reference to Regulation cil Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 pro- No 2187/93 caused the Verwaltungsgericht viding for an offer of compensation to to suspect that that solution was not in certain producers of milk and milk accordance with Community law. products temporarily prevented from carrying on their trade?

In Dethlefs the Court of First Instance stated that 'in so far as the compensation (b) If that question is answered in the arrangements laid down therein [Regula- negative and if the case falls within the tion No 2187/93] were intended to dis- first paragraph of Article 215 of the EC charge the obligations arising from the Treaty, thus giving the national courts findings made against the Community jurisdiction under Article 183 of the institutions in Mulder, application of the EC Treaty, the further question arises Regulation falls within the domain of the as to whether the provisions of national Community's non-contractual liability.'16 procedural law or the general princi- ples of law common to the legal systems of the Member States are to 16 — Case T-112/95 [1998] ECR II-3819, paragraph 55. be applied to such a contract, in so far

Legal analysis 24. There are undoubtedly certain differ- ences between the position of the Commis- sion and that of the applicants, but the conclusion which they reach appears to me to be the same. The Commission, after The first question setting out the arguments which, in its opinion, support one solution or the other, acknowledges that the acceptance of the jurisdiction of the national courts is more Preliminary considerations consistent with the system established by the relevant articles of the EC Treaty. It concludes, however, by espousing the oppo- site solution, essentially for the sake of expediency, in other words because that 22. It is clear from the order for reference solution is the most practical or convenient. that the question whether disputes regard- Indeed that solution has the merit of

I - 7221

OPINION OF MR TIZZANO — JOINED CASES C-80/99, C-81/99 AND C-82/99

providing a single legal remedy, offering a on a single court, but it can equally be said single means of redress both for those that to resolve disputes between an indivi- disputes concerning compensation agree- dual and the national authorities, the ments concluded under Regulation individual might find it easier and more No 2187/93 and those concerning the convenient to bring proceedings before the non-contractual liability of the EC, which, national courts than the Court of Justice. to a certain extent, is the basis for the These are very subjective arguments and system of compensation. therefore do not offer a safe, objective guide.

I - 7222

FLEMMER AND OTHERS

I - 7223

OPINION OF MR TIZZANO — JOINED CASES C-80/99, C-81/99 AND C-82/99

Having recognised the significance of that In Detblefs, proceedings were brought correlation, however, it is still important to directly against the Council and the Com- consider whether it is sufficient to justify mission by a number of producers to obtain the conclusion that disputes concerning compensation for losses caused to them by compensation agreements concluded the institutions. In particular, the applicants between producers and national authorities complained that the Commission had fall within the jurisdiction of the Court of refused payment of the interest due for Justice under Article 178 and the second the period between acceptance of the offer paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty made by the national authority and the (now, respectively, Article 235 EC and the actual withdrawal of the actions for second paragraph of Article 288 EC). damages under the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty brought by the operators concerned before Regulation No 2187/93 came into force.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance in the case of Detblefs

responsibility under Regulation point, the compensation system established No 2187/93, claiming that the responsibil- by Regulation No 2187/93 does not form ity for applying the Regulation lay with the part of the normal division of responsibil- national authorities and not the Commu- ities between the Community and Member nity institutions (paragraph 34). States for the enforcement of Community law. It is true that the Regulation itself defines that system precisely, but that can be explained by the difficult situation which the Community faces. As the large number of individuals potentially entitled In contrast, in these proceedings we are not to compensation made individual consid- in any way concerned with the actions of eration of each case problematic, a solution those institutions, but merely with the of a general nature had to be found, based actions of the national authorities, and on flat-rate payments and on mechanisms their jurisdiction. defined in detail in the Regulation itself. It imposed limitations on the autonomy of the national authorities whilst conferring on them responsibility for the implementation and practical operation of the system (see fourth recital). Implementation of Regulation No 2187/93 in the light of division of functions between the Community and the Member States

37. Despite the specific characteristics indi- cated, the system set up remains part of the 35. So, having established what I see as the framework of decentralised management correct scope of the precedent cited, I can under Community law which characterises now resume consideration of the question so many other sectors of Community whether, as the Commission submits, the action. Moreover, as the tenth recital of close link between the duties of the national the Regulation reads, authorities under Regulation No 2187/93 and the non-contractual liability of the Community is sufficient for those duties to be subsumed under the Community's liability, inter alia for the purposes of determining which court has jurisdiction.

39. In support of the argument in favour of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, both the Verwaltungsgericht and the Commission rely, moreover, on a further aspect of the role played by the national authorities 38. The Court of First Instance, moreover, within the framework of the compensation rejected that conclusion in Laga and Land- system created by Regulation No 2187/93, uyt, 18 in which it ruled out its jurisdiction namely the fact that those authorities are to review the legality of a measure adopted required, in that context, to carry out an by the competent French authority in which activity which is typically contractual in the applicant was denied the right to an nature. It will be recalled that the system of offer of compensation under Regulation compensation is based on an agreement No 2187/93. Making extensive reference to concluded between the authority and the the settled case-law of the Court, according individual operator setting out the amount to which it is for Member States 'to ensure of the compensation due to the individual. that Community regulations, particularly those concerning the common agricultural policy, are implemented within their terri- tory', the Court of First Instance concludes from this, as an initial finding of a general 40. The national court and the Commis- nature, that 'acts adopted by the national sion attach particular importance to the authorities in the context of the implemen- fact that, under Article 14 of Regulation tation of that policy are normally subject, No 2187/93, the national authorities act therefore, to review by the national courts'. for these purposes 'in the name and on More specifically, it later held it did not behalf of' the Council and the Commission. have jurisdiction to review the legality of They maintain that, for this reason, the the measure of the national authority, as relationship between the national authori- ties and the Community institutions men- tioned should be deemed that of agent and 18 — Case T-93/95 Laga v Commission [1998] ECR 11-195, principal, with the result that the contrac- paragraph 33 et seq., and Case T-94/95 Landttyt v Commission [1998] ECR II-213, paragraph 33 et seq. tual relationship arising from the offer of I - 7226

compensation by the national authorities Court has jurisdiction to give judgment and acceptance of that offer by the produ- pursuant to any arbitration clause in dis- cer should, in reality, be considered as being putes concerning contracts governed by directly between the producer on the one public or private law agreed by the Com- hand, and the Council and the Commission munity or on behalf of the Community, on the other. reveals that, as a general rule, disputes concerning contracts to which the Com- munity is a party, or in which one of the contracting parties acts as an agent of the Community, fall within the jurisdiction of the national court. 41. I do not wish to explore this argument in detail here. It is important at this juncture merely to note that, even if one takes the view that the national authorities are acting as an agent or representative for the Community institutions and that com- Extent of Community jurisdiction in the pensation agreements concluded by the area of non-contractual liability national authorities under Regulation No 2187/93 are between the institutions and individual producers, that should not rule out jurisdiction of the national courts in disputes concerning those agreements. 42. In support of the view that the Court of Justice has jurisdiction, I need only elabo- rate on an argument already cited (see paragraph 31). It is necessary to demon- strate that the jurisdiction assigned to the It is well known that, under the first Court under Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215, and under Arti- paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty cles 183 and 181 of the EC Treaty (now, (now, respectively, Article 235 EC and respectively, the first paragraph of Arti- 288(2) EC) in cases of non-contractual cle 288 EC, Articles 240 EC and 238 EC), liability of the Community also encom- disputes concerning contractual matters to passes disputes concerning contractual which the Community is a party fall, as a claims regarding the discharge of compen- rule, within the jurisdiction of the national sation obligations after liability has been courts. As the Court stated in its ruling of established. 21 May 1987, 19 '[according to Arti- cle 183 of the EEC Treaty, the national courts or tribunals are to have jurisdiction in disputes to which the Community is a party, with the exception of those in respect As we have seen, this is the view which the of which exclusive jurisdiction is conferred Commission is attempting to assert, on the Court of Justice'. Examination of extending, as outlined above, the scope of that provision in conjunction with Arti- Article 178 of the EC Treaty in so far as it cle 181 of the EC Treaty under which the assigns jurisdiction to the Court in disputes relating to compensation for losses provi- ded for in the second paragraph of Arti- 19 —Joined Cases 133/85 to 136/85 Ran v BALM [1987] ECR 2289. cle 215.

43. However, I must point out that there is In formal terms, an offer of compensation no hint of such an interpretation in the by the competent national authority to the provisions of the Treaty cited, and that the producer and its corresponding acceptance interpretation reflects neither the letter nor by the producer are seen as factors which the spirit of those provisions. constitute an autonomous legal relation- ship, even where its purpose is to satisfy and pre-empt claims on the part of the producer for compensation by the Com- munity. That relationship must be seen as having contractual status as the Court of First Instance recognised in Connaughton 44. As we have seen above, the Treaty- when it stated, '[accordingly, as far as makes a clear distinction between disputes producers are concerned, Regulation relating to non-contractual liability of the No 2187/93 is in the nature of a proposal Community, which fall within the jurisdic- by way of settlement, acceptance of which tion of the Court of Justice (Article 178 and is optional, and constitutes an alternative to the second paragraph of Article 215 of the judicial resolution of the dispute.' 20 EC Treaty), and contractual disputes where the national courts have jurisdiction, except where the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to an arbitration clause (Article 181 of the EC Treaty). As a general rule, therefore, 46. On the other hand, the notion of the and subject to the powers assigned to the autonomy of the contractual relations Court, the Treaty recognises the jurisdic- under discussion seems to me to be more tion of the national courts in disputes to consistent with the system established by which the Community is a party (Arti- Regulation No 2187/93. Article 14 of the cle 183 of the EC Treaty). It is clear from Regulation provides that acceptance of the this that any derogations from that basic offer by the return to the competent system of division of powers between the authority of the duly approved and signed Court of Justice and the national courts receipt is to imply the relinquishment of cannot be inferred on the basis of assump- any claim of whatever nature against tions regarding interpretation, but should Community institutions in respect of any be expressly and unequivocally stated. loss. Conversely, the fifteenth recital of the Regulation states that 'failure by the pro- ducer to accept the offer made by the competent authority of the Member State in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation would amount to refusal of the Community offer;... any legal proceedings 45. Nor can the Commission's argument continued or initiated thereafter by the outlined above be justified on account of producer would fall within the Communi- the particular nature of the relationships ty's jurisdiction'. Here there is thus no legal being dealt with in the main proceedings, relationship between the producer and the that is to say on account of their close national authorities, yet the case remains connection with the non-contractual liabi- lity of the Community to which I have referred more than once above (see, in 20 — Cited above, paragraph 35, and Case T-554/93 Saint and Murray v Council and Commission [1997] ECR II-563, particular, paragraph 31). paragraph 41.

entirely within the ambit of the Community stances specified in Regulation No 2187/93 and of the relationship between the produ- resulted from the outcome of the checks cer and the Community institutions arising carried out by the national authorities, 'the from the establishment of the non-contrac- event giving rise to the loss for which the tual liability of the institutions. Naturally, applicant claims reparation is an act therefore, disputes arising in this connec- adopted by the national authorities in the tion fall within the jurisdiction of the Court exercise of their own powers. It follows of Justice within the meaning of Arti- that the conditions which must be satisfied cle 178 and the second paragraph of Arti- for the matter to be brought before the cle 215 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 Court under Article 178 and the second EC and the second paragraph of Arti- paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty are cle 288 EC). Where, however, the offer is not fulfilled'. 22 accepted, an autonomous legal relationship is established with the national authorities, which, as long as it remains in force, has an independent existence and, as such, cannot but come within the jurisdiction of the national courts. 48. In the light of the arguments presented above, I can only conclude that the national court has jurisdiction in disputes relating to enforcement of Regulation No 2187/93 by the national authorities, in particular where 47. However, I think that the proof of my these are, as here, disputes concerning argument so far derives in the main from a compensation agreements concluded teleological interpretation of Article 178 between those authorities and the indivi- and of the second paragraph of Article 215 dual producers concerned. of the EC Treaty. As the Court has had reason to state on a number of occasions, '[The purpose of] the action for damages provided for in Articles 178 and 215 of the Treaty... is not to enable the Court to examine the validity of decisions taken by national agencies responsible for the imple- mentation of certain measures within the The second question framework of the common agricultural policy or to assess the financial conse- quences resulting from any invalidity of such decisions'. 21 The Court of First Instance rightly concluded from the case- 49. A reply in the negative to the first law cited in Laga and Landuyt, that, since question requires me to consider the second the refusal on the part of the competent question since, in the event of such a reply, national authority to make the applicant an the Verwaltungsgericht requested a ruling offer of compensation under the circum- as to whether the provisions of national procedural law or general principles of law

50. In my opinion, the reply to the second question is to some extent implied by the reply to the first question. It has long been settled case-law of the Court that if imple- Nor do I consider that this reply can be mentation of Community law is the respon- challenged on the basis of the concerns sibility of the authorities of the Member expressed by the Commission that it would States, it must take place in accordance give rise to a non-uniform application of with national law. The Court, in fact, states Community law in the national legal sys- that where 'the implementation of a Com- tems. It is reasonable to respond that munity Regulation is a matter for the Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Arti- national authorities subject to review by cle 234 EC) makes provision for the pre- the national courts, implementation must liminary ruling procedure precisely in order comply with the procedural and formal to prevent the non-uniform application of rules prescribed by the national law of the Community law which would compromise Member State concerned. However, as the equality of treatment of economic opera- Court has already emphasised in a number tors in all Member States. It is well known of consistent decisions, recourse to rules of that the procedure allows national courts to national law is possible only in so far as it is refer to the Court, in cases such as those necessary for the implementation of provi- under consideration here, any question sions of Community law and in so far as concerning the interpretation and validity the application of those rules of national of relevant Community law. 24 law does not jeopardise the scope and effectiveness of that Community law'. 23

gericht asks the Court about the implica- bursement of payments made by the autho- tions of certain general principles of law, in rities, as long as the application of those particular the principle of the protection of principles is in accordance with the condi- legitimate expectations, in disputes arising tions and the procedures laid down for from the compensation agreements under purely national legal relationships, and the consideration. More particularly, the interests of the Community are taken fully national court wishes to know whether into account. 25 that principle prevents national authorities which have concluded a compensation agreement in the name and on behalf of the Community institutions, from later annulling it (and, if this is the case, on what terms) if they find that the conditions for an offer of compensation to be made have not been met or where they find that these conditions are only met because the On the same matter, moreover, the Court national authorities, for reasons pertaining also had occasion to stress that 'a wrongful solely to the protection of legitimate expec- act on the part of the Commission or its tations in each case, have no influence on officials, and likewise a practice of a the fulfilment of the preconditions for Member State which does not conform payment of the compensation. with Community rules, is not capable of giving rise to legitimate expectations on the part of an economic operator who benefits from the situation thereby created... 26 It follows that the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations cannot be relied upon against a precise provision of Com- munity law, and that the conduct of a national authority responsible for applying Community law, which acts in breach of that law, cannot give rise to legitimate 53. Here too, in my view, the answer may expectations on the part of an economic be found in the Court's case-law. On this operator that he will benefit from treat- question, I shall refer simply to Milchkon- ment which is contrary to Community tor. In this case, concerning the recovery of law'. 27 In similar cases, as Advocate Gen- aids unduly paid, the Court primarily eral Mancini points out in that case, the confirmed an unequivocal trend in its aggrieved party always has the possibility case-law, ruling that the principles of the of bringing an action for compensation protection of legitimate expectations and of before the national courts against the legal certainty are an integral part of the authorities responsible for the error which, Community legal order. That being the in its view, caused it loss. 28 case, the Court went on to make clear that one cannot consider it inconsistent with that legal order if a national legal system 25 — Milcblwntor, cited ahove, paragraph 27 et seq. 26 — See Case 188/82 Thyssen (1983) ECR 3721 and Case 5/82 guarantees respect for those principles Maizena [1982] ECR 4601. where, by reason of a breach of Commu- 27 — Case 316/86 Hauptzolhmt Hamburg-jonas v Krucken nity rules, it is necessary to withdraw |1988| ECR 2213, paragraph 24. 28 — Opinion of Advocate General Mancini in Case 316/86, administrative measures or to require reim- cited above, p. 2231.

I - 7232

FLEMMER AND OTHERS

(2) The provisions of national procedural law are applicable to compensation agreements concluded pursuant to the Regulation in so far as the Regulation makes no provision to that effect, as long as application of those provisions does not jeopardise the scope and effectiveness of Community law.

(3) Community law does not preclude the authorities of a Member State from taking into account the principle of legitimate expectations in deciding whether there has been any breach of conditions imposed by Community legislation, as long as that principle is applied in accordance with the conditions and the procedures laid down for purely national legal relation- ships, and as long as the interests of the Community are taken fully into account.

I - 7233