2.

It seems to me appropriate to emphasize at the outset that the case does not involve the merits of the French measures. The decision of 12 January 1983 by which the Commission decided that they were contrary to Article 92 of the Treaty was not in fact challenged by the State to which it was addressed and therefore became definitive. The Court's only task is, therefore, to ascertain whether France has complied with the decision by adopting within the prescribed period the necessary provisions to that end. Let us now examine the content of the decision. The operative part consists of three articles. The first paragraph of Article 1 provides that: “The French Republic shall, within one month of notification of this decision, abolish the aid scheme in favour of the textile and clothing industry under which the State takes over responsibility for part of the social security contributions payable by employers in the industry”. The second paragraph adds a further requirement: “The French Republic shall cease to grant aid under the scheme in question from the date of notification of this decision.” The specific effect of those requirements is clarified in the preamble. In fact, according to the final paragraph of Part III thereof the abolition of the aid scheme requires that the French Government must not conclude “any contract” and must “terminate any contracts already concluded with firms”. To summarize, therefore, France is required (a) to abolish the scheme in force; (b) to withhold aid already agreed. The first duty, as I have said, requires that contracts concluded before 31 December 1982 should not be renewed. However, during the course of the oral procedure, the French Government has admitted that some of them were renewed; but it added that they were so renewed pursuant to the provisions of another measure, issued in the form of a decree on 7 June 1983. To understand the scope of that defence, it is necessary to refer to subsequent events. On 5 May 1983, the French Government notified the Commission of the draft of a new provision on the aid scheme in favour of the textile and clothing industry. Noting that it did not differ substantially from the previous decree and was therefore incompatible with Article 92, the Commission set in motion the administrative procedure pursuant to Article 93 (2); but whilst it was pending, France issued the disputed decree (that is, on 7 June 1983). The Commission then initiated the other administrative procedure under Article 169 of the Treaty; and since that too had no result, it brought an action before the Court (Case 171/83) on 4 August 1983. However, to that it must be added that we may take note of the second decree, but that we cannot take account of it; in particular we may not ask whether it is limited to reproducing the previous one or whether it presents any fresh features such as to prevent it from conflicting with Article 92. I repeat that the Court is called upon only to ascertain whether contracts concluded on the basis of the first decree have been renewed — and regard being had to the specific admissions of the defendant government, there can be no doubt on that point. It therefore only remains for the Court to find that France has failed to fulfil the first of its obligations under the Commission's decision.