Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 61990CC0002(02)

    Concluziile avocatului general prezentate la data de29 ianuarie 1992.
    Comisia Comunităților Europene împotriva Regatului Belgiei.
    Neîndeplinirea obligațiilor de către un stat membru.
    Cauza C-2/90.

    ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:1992:43

    Date of document:
    29/01/1992
    Date lodged:
    03/01/1990
    Author:
    Curtea de Justiţie
    Country or organisation from which the request originates:
    Belgia
    Form:
    Concluziile avocatului general
    Authentic language:
    engleză
    Type of procedure:
    Acţiune în neîndeplinirea obligaţiilor - întemeiată, Acţiune în neîndeplinirea obligaţiilor - neîntemeiată
    Defendant:
    Belgia
    Judge-Rapporteur:
    Kakouris
    Advocate General:
    Jacobs
    Treaty:
    Tratat de instituire a Comunităţii Economice Europene
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document

    OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL

    JACOBS

    delivered on 29 January 1992 ( *1 )

    Mr President,

    Members of the Court,

    1. 

    The proceedings in this case have followed a more elaborate path than usual. After the normal exchange of pleadings, the parties were heard on 27 November 1990 and I delivered my Opinion on 10 January 1991. By order of 2 May 1991, the Court ordered the reopening of the oral procedure, and after a further hearing I delivered a further Opinion on 19 September 1991, in which I considered such new matters as had been advanced by the parties, but reached the same conclusion as in my first Opinion. Unfortunately, however, the Court was unable to reach a decision in its then composition, and consequently by order of 8 October 1991 it reopened the oral procedure once again. A new hearing was initially fixed for 26 November 1991 but was subsequently postponed to 28 January 1992.

    2. 

    Having considered the observations made by the parties at yesterday's hearing, I can find nothing to add to my earlier Opinions. I therefore remain of the view that the case should be disposed of in accordance with the solution put forward in those Opinions.

    ( *1 ) Original language: English.

    Top