Court of Justice 08-07-1981 ECLI:EU:C:1981:167

Opinion of Mr Advocate General Reischl

delivered on 8 July 1981 ^(*)

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

This case is not proceeding to judgment on the main issue and under Article 69 (5) of the Rules of Procedure the costs are in the discretion of the Court.

On consideration of the application at the final stage, there remains in fact only a single issue which is the claim that the regulation against which the application was made was adopted without the required consultation of the Parliament. I do not think that that claim is well founded because the Parliament did not express a view on this particular regulation but on the draft of a regulation which was to contain quota arrangements for five years. In my opinion if the Parliament approves more comprehensive fresh arrangements it thereby approves a continuation of the corresponding arrangements hitherto in force.

It is significant that the Parliament which intervened in the first case (Case 138/79 Roquette Frères v Council of the European Communities, judgment of 29 October 1980), has not intervened in this case. I believe too that the Parliament is of the opinion that in the present case its rights have not been infringed.

In my opinion therefore the application is certainly not well founded. I would nevertheless suggest that the Court should provide for the costs to be shared, that is to say, should order each party to bear its own costs.