Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:1999:273
Date: 1999-06-01
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Overseas countries and territories;Sugar
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Netherlands

Summary of the Order 
Community law — Principles — Fundamental rights — Observance ensured by the 
Court — European Convention on Human Rights taken into consideration — Right of all 
persons to a fair hearing — Refusal by the Court of a request to submit observations in 
response to the Opinion of the Advocate General — Whether in breach of that 
fundamental right — No such breach 
(Art. 222 EC; Art. 6(2) EU; European Convention on Human Rights, Art. 6(1); EC 
Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 18; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 59 
and 61) 
I - 665 
SUMMARY — CASE C-17/98 
Fundamental rights form an integral part of 
the general principles of law, the obser­
vance of which the Court ensures. For that 
purpose, the Court draws inspiration from 
the constitutional traditions common to the 
Member States and from the guidelines 
supplied by international treaties for the 
protection of human rights on which the 
Member States have cooperated or of 
which they are signatories. The European 
Convention on Human Rights — referred 
to, moreover, in Article 6(2) EU — has 
special significance in that respect. 
Article 6(1) of the European Convention 
on Human Rights concerning the right of 
all persons, in adversarial proceedings, to a 
fair hearing does not preclude the Court 
from refusing a request for leave to submit 
written observations in response to the 
Opinion of the Advocate General. 
First, within the judicial system established 
by the Treaty and by the Statute of the 
Court of Justice, as set out in detail in the 
Court's Rules of Procedure, the Opinion of 
the Advocate General — by contrast with 
an opinion addressed to the judges or to the 
parties which stems from an authority 
outside the Court or which derives its 
authority from that of, say, a Procureur 
General's department [or French 'ministère 
public'] — constitutes the individual rea­
soned opinion, expressed in open court, of 
a Member of the Court of Justice itself, 
who takes part, publicly and individually, 
in the process by which the Court reaches 
its judgment, and therefore in carrying out 
the judicial function entrusted to the Court. 
Secondly, with a view to the very purpose 
of adversarial procedure, which is to pre­
vent the Court from being influenced by 
arguments which the parties have been 
unable to discuss, the Court may of its 
own motion, on a proposal from the 
Advocate General or at the request of the 
parties, reopen the oral procedure, in 
accordance with Article 61 of its Rules of 
Procedure, if it considers that it lacks 
sufficient information, or that the case 
must be dealt with on the basis of an 
argument which has not been debated 
between the parties. 
(see paras 8-10, 14-15, 18, 20) 
I - 6 6 6