33The applicant submits that giving such legal sanction to existing agreements which were contrary to Article 85 of the Treaty did not however take those agreements outside the scope of that article (Case 123/83BNIC [1985] ECR 391, paragraphs 23 to 25; Case 311/85VVR v Sociale Dienst van de Plaatselijke en Gewestelijke Overheidsdiensten [1987] ECR 3801, paragraphs 21 to 23; Case 136/86BNIC v Aubert [1987] ECR 4789 and in particular the Opinion of Advocate General Sir Gordon Slynn, p. 4805; and Case 267/86Van Eycke v ASPA [1988] ECR 4769, paragraph 16). At most, it demonstrated the necessity for the Commission to examine the compatibility of the French legislation with the Treaty in order to ascertain whether Decree No 74-954 had unlawfully sanctioned preexisting restrictive agreements and whether it was a mere legal cloak for concerted action between the sociétés PMU members and the PMU itself. The applicant stresses that its complaint was also brought against the French Republic under Article 90 of the Treaty and that it had requested appropriate declarations from the Commission in accordance with Regulation No 17 and Article 90(3) of the Treaty and decisions enjoining the French Republic to put an end to the alleged infringements.