C-117/76

proceedings under Article 177, rules correct this incompatibility.

In Joined Cases 117/76 and 16/77,

Reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the

Finanzgericht Hamburg for a preliminary ruling in the actions pending before that court, in Case 117/76 between

The consortium of:

1. ALBERT RUCKDESCHEL & CO., Kulmbach (Germany),

HAUPTZOLLAMT ITZENHOE,

on the validity of Article 11 of Regulation No 120/67/EEC of the Council of 13 June 1967 on the common organization of the market in cereals (OJ English Special Edition 1967, p. 33) as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 665/75 of 4 March 1975 (OJ L 72, p. 14) and of Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 1955/75 of the Council July 1975 on production refunds in the of 22 cereals and rice sectors (OJ L 200, p. 1) and, if need be, of Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organization of the market in cereals (OJ L 281, p. 1) in so far as these measures make no provision for a production refund for maize used in the

manufacture of quellmehl of an amount equivalent to that of the refund

granted for the processing of this product into starch,

RUCKDESCHEL v HAUPTZOLLAMT HAMBURG-ST. ANNEN

THE COURT

The facts of the case, the course of the Such measures had been adopted by procedure and the written observations Regulation No 55 of the Council of 30 submitted under Article 20 of the June 1962 relating to the system in Protocol on the Statute of the Court of respect of processed products based on

Justice of the EEC may be summarized cereals (JO of 2. 7. 1962, p. 1583). Article as follows: 17 of that regulation had established the

system of discretionary refunds for certain starches. The thirteenth recital in I — Facts and written procedure the preamble to the regulation reads as

follows: 1. Quellmehl, a product processed from maize, common wheat or broken rice, 'Whereas because of the special situation

and pre-gelatinized starch, which is on the market in starches and in processed from the same basic products, particular the need for that industry to are to some extent in competition with keep prices competitive with those for each other, their common feature being substitute products, it is necessary by way that they are both used as an aid to of derogation from the provisions ... of

baking, more specifically as leavening in Regulation No 19 of the Council, to the bread. by means of a production refund making of rye ensure

refunds. It had however established for Council, fixing the production refunds

the first time a production refund for for starch, potato starch and quellmehl

maize and common wheat used in the (JO of 28. 6. 1967, p. 2617 and of quellmehl industry. 31. 7. 1967, p. 40) maintained this parity between starch and quellmehl.

Regulation No 142/64/EEC of the Council of 21 October 1964 The production refund for quellmehl was providing for the extension and adjustment to 31 maintained until 1 August 1974 with

March 1965 of the limitations on the effect from which date it was abolished

production refunds for cereal and potato by Regulation (EEC) No 1125/74 of the

that:

The system established by the definitive 'the production refund for quellmehl was

basic Regulation No 120/67/EEC of the initially granted with a view to

Council of 13 June 1967 on the promoting certain specific uses of

common organization of the market in quellmehl as a food for human cereals (OJ English Special Edition 1967, consumption, account being taken of the p. 33) made the grant of the production possibility of its competing with a

In products;'

of the should

Article 11 (1) of the regulation reads: Regulation (EEC) No 1132/74 of the Council of 29 April 1974 on production

'1. A production refund shall be granted: refunds in the cereal and rice sectors (OJ (a; tor maize ana common wheat L 128 of 10. 5. 1974, p. 24), which fixed used by the starch industry for the refunds provided for by Regulation the manufacture of starch and (EEC) No 1125/74, resulted in the

quellmehl; reduction of the production refund for

(b) tor potato starch; maize and common wheat used for the

(c) for maize used in the maize manufacture of starch to 24.60 units of

'a precise assessment of the situation provided for the grant of production

resulting from the level of common refunds for quellmehl. prices and from the competition

between, on the one hand, maize starch, The plaintiffs in the main actions

rice starch, potato starch and, on the brought the present proceedings before other, the substitute chemical products, the Finanzgericht Hamburg against these indicates that the refund should be fixed decisions rejecting the applications.

at such a figure that the price of maize

used in starch manufacture is brought Before that court, the plaintiffs in the

be dismissed. Regulation (EEC) No 665/75 of the Council of 4 March 1975 amending 4. Holding that the cases raised Regulation (EEC) No 120/67/EEC (OJ L questions of interpretation of 72 of 20. 3. 1975, p. 14) which entered Community law the Finanzgericht into force on 1 August 1975 made, inter Hamburg, by orders of 8 November 1976 alia, the production refund for cereals and 18 January 1977, stayed the used in the manufacture of starch no proceedings and requested the Court of longer compulsory. Moreover the Justice under Article 177 of the EEC regulation abolished the production

refund for maize groats and meal (gritz) Treaty to give a preliminary ruling on

the following questions: used by the brewing industry.

'1. Do Article 11 of Regulation No In Regulation (EEC) No 1955/75 of the 120/67/EEC as last by amended Council of 22 July 1975 on production Regulation (EEC) No 665/75 of 4 refunds in the cereals and rice sectors March 1975 (OJ L 72 of 20. 3. 1975, (OJ L 200 of 31. 8. 1975. p. 1) which also p. 14) and Article 1 of Regulation entered into force on 1 August 1975, the (EEC) No 1955/75 of 22 July 1975 production refund on, inter alia, maize (OJ L 200 of 31. 8. 1975, p. 1) or does for the manufacture of starch was once Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) No more reduced and fixed at 10 u. a. per 2727/75 of 29 October 1975 (OJ tonne. L 281 of 1. 11. 1975, p. 1) infringe the prohibition of discrimination 3. The respective plaintiffs in the main contained in Article 40 (3) of the

actions, who are producers of quellmehl, EEC Treaty and are they invalid in so

that Community regulations no longer quellmehl a direct claim to the same

JUDGMENT OF 19. 10. 1977 — JOINED CASES 117/76 AND 16/77

the non-existent, does production refund as manufac­ not correspond to the

turers of pre-gelatinized starch or is a facts. legal measure adopted by the Council required for this? The adjudicating Senate finds that it is unable to ascertain and review the actual

5. In the grounds for the orders prerequisites for the abolition of the making the reference the Finanzgericht Hamburg production refund in connexion with the

made, inter alia, the following manufacture of quellmehl, in order to be comments: able to decide accordingly whether there is any prohibited discrimination against

There might under Community law be only to an economically insignificant prohibited discrimination if — as the extent in competition in the territory of plaintiff maintains — quellmehl and the EEC with products containing starch. pre-gelatinized starch are interchangeable Since the plaintiff contests this, with

as aids to baking in the baking industry supporting evidence, the question arises and if as a result of the abolition of the whether Regulation (EEC) No 1125/74 is

production refund for quellmehl on the valid in so far as it relates to the abolition one hand and the retention of the of the production refund on quellmehl, production refund for pre-gelatinized since it may infringe Article 40 (3) of the starch on the other hand quellmehl is no EEC Treaty. The adjudicating Senate longer competitive and has been ousted therefore ruling by the considers that a

from its former market. The recitals in European Court of Justice is necessary in the preamble to Regulation No the interest of a uniform application of

120/67/EEC state that a production Community law. refund should be granted because of the

inter-changeability of starches with If the Court of Justice should come to

starch are interchangeable. The plaintiff 10 December 1976 and 31 January 1977 submits that the recital in the preamble respectively.

to Regulation (EEC) No 1125/74, which states that the production refund for the In accordance with Article 20 of the

manufacture of quellmehl should be Protocol on the Statute of the Court of

abolished, because experience has shown Justice of the EEC, written observations

that the opportunity for such substitution were submitted by the plaintiffs in the

is economically slight, if not main actions, the plaintiff in Case 117/76

Kalbe and Gdtz zur Hausen, acting as amount as for maize and rice processed

Agents. into quellmehl or starch has enabled

quellmehl to retain intact its competitive By order of 25 May 1977 the Court advantage over pre-gelatinized starch.

decided to join the cases for the purposes of the procedure. (d) The reasons advanced to justify the abolition of the production refund

After hearing the report of the granted for the manufacture of quellmehl

Judge-Rapporteur and the views of the and the retention of the refund for starch Advocate-General the Court decided to are untrue.

II — Written observations sub­

mitted to the Court (f) The abolition of the production refund for quellmehl created a fundamental The first question change in the competitive situation

which naturally exists between quellmehl 1. (a) The plaintiffs in the main and pre-gelatinized starch; after it was actions point out first of all that abolished pre-gelatinized starch could be quellmehl does not have the same offered on the market at a lower price importance in the other Member States than quellmehl. as in Germany. On the other hand it is not correct to claim, as the defendants in According to the plaintiff in the main the main actions have done, that action in Case 117/76 it is because the quellmehl is of importance only in manufacturers of quellmehl and of Germany. ingredients of quellmehl-based baking products paid the production refund out (b) From the technical point of view

quellmehl and pre-gelatinized starch are of their own pockets that they have been able, in the main, to maintain their interchangeable and equal from the position on the market. point of view of their use as aids to the

baking of products made from rye flour. The plaintiff in the main action in Case

(c) Where there is free competition as 16/77 considers that the level of prices

than DM 100 per 100 kg. On the other inasmuch as this starch is intended for hand pre-gelatinized starch made from the industrial sector and is in maize or wheat is at present already competition with chemical substitute

being offered at from DM 85 per 100 kg products.

free at destination. The two biggest manufacturers of quellmehl-based (h) There is also an unofficial reason for ingredients of baking products have the abolition of the production refund

suffered a reduction in their turnover in for quellmehl: that a great deal of

one case of 75 % in 1975, compared quellmehl based on maize and rice is with 1974, in the other case of 40 % in sold for animal feed and its use for this

1976, compared with 1974. In the case of purpose is an abuse which must be the two undertakings referred to this redressed by abolishing the production

in their income and the sole reason for Netherlands, but their output is this is to be found in the fact that a insignificant. But even if these

production refund is paid for the undertakings were to have sold

manufacture of pre-gelatinized starch, quellmehl for use as animal feed such

whereas, in contrast to this, none is paid sales would still have been of

for the manufacture of quellmehl. comparatively little importance.

(g) According to the official statement They go on to say that the Community of the grounds, a production refund for regulations on production refunds for the maize, rye and potato starch appears to two products in question did not prohibit be required only to enable the starch sale of those products for animal feed.

(i) In the same way as the production if quellmehl is of economic importance refund can be restricted to starch used in in the food industry throughout the

industry for chemical purposes, it can, in Common Market. There are in the

the case of quellmehl or starch, be Community production refunds which

restricted exclusively to cases where these benefit only the undertakings in certain products are used for human con­ Member States such as the aid to durum sumption. wheat, colza and olive oil.

It is not difficult for control to be (1) Moreover, in the case of the

effectively exercised. The unofficial quellmehl manufacturers concerned, reason for the abolition of the production discrimination is appreciable and

Community for the simple reason that, In consequence, any entitlement to the as is shown by the state of the market, refunds and the amounts of the refunds after the abolition of the refund for depend, in Case 117/76, on Regulations quellmehl, pre-gelatinized starch, for the Nos 1132/74 (EEC) 1125/74, and manufacture of which a production 3113/74 of the Council and on refund is granted, would be used in its Regulation (EEC) No 2518/74 of the place. Commission of 4 October 1974 (OJ L 270, p. 1) and, in Case 16/77, on

(k) Finally the plaintiffs in the main Regulations (EEC) Nos 1125/74, 665/75 actions contend that there is no and 1955/75 of the Council. substantial ground for abolishing the

natural disparity between the (b) According to the Council, quellmehl competitiveness of the two products in and pre-gelatinized starch are to some

question. Contrary to the contention of extent interchangeable in particular

the defendant in the main action, it is when used as baking materials in the

not true that there is discrimination only manufacture of rye bread. However

quellmehl from 15 to 20 % cheaper than of the refund for this product furthers pre-gelatinized starch, which is far more the objective designed to limiting the than the amount of the refund which common agricultural policy 'to pursuit of 39'

pre-gelatinized starch continued to the objectives set out in Article receive until the 1975/76 marketing year. (second subparagraph of Article 40 (3) of the Treaty). Thus the abolition of the subsidy would

not have abolished the advantages as (e) With regard to the alleged

regards price and quality which infringement of the rule against

quellmehl enjoys in terms of the discrimination, the Council contends

manufacture of cooking agents. that to treat dissimilar situations

was less need to protect the processing granted for pre-gelatinized starch has on

industries of the Community. Again, the several occasions been considerably fact that the manufacture of starch is reduced and, secondly, unjustified

much more costly and complex than that inasmuch as it helps to create an

of quellmehl also resulted in making the unintended outlet by way of animal feed. production costs of starch markedly more This different position justifies different sensitive to the increase in investment treatment despite the fact that the two

costs and in labour costs. Finally, the products concerned are to some extent in Community realized that quellmehl was competition.

no longer put solely to its traditional use, baking, but that, owing to the refund, it (f) The Council also states that even if, was used as a constituent of animal feed. in the past, quellmehl and starch have in But these developments, which arose general received the same treatment this

in the case of quellmehl but at most on

This is clear from the fourth recital in the fact that the refund granted for the preamble to Regulation (EEC) No pre-gelatinized starch was not abolished

1125/74 which gives grounds for the in its entirety. abolition of the payment of a refund for quellmehl and begins to reduce it for (b) From the legal standpoint

starch. The reduction to 10 u.a. per tonne Commission contends that an economic

of the refund for starch restored the decision of the same kind as the

natural superiority of quellmehl as a contested measure cannot be

France [1974] ECR 877, according to production refunds had to be adjusted to

which difference in treatment cannot be economic realities: the supply price (the regarded as discrimination basis of calculation of the production constituting which is prohibited unless it appears refund, which represents the difference arbitrary. between this price and the Community threshold price) had not followed the

In the Council's view it appears to be trend of market and threshold prices, clear from the facts which it has set out, which was steadily rising and the refunds

especially from those relating to the were, in consequence, pratically doubled; natural superiority of quellmehl from the and, because of the increase in the price

competitive point of view and its use in of synthetic products which are in the manufacture of animal feed, which is competition with cereal-based starch as

contrary to the original object of the the 'result of the rise in price of oil

relevant amounts.

3. (a) The Commission states that the

abolition of the production refund for (e) In consequence the question arose

quellmehl is only one aspect of the whether the timing of the reduction in comprehensive change in the the production refund for quellmehl

Community's subsidies policy in the case should be the same as in the case of

of products processed from cereals, one starch.

had been hitherto. The explanation why material is the same, the refund, adapted

quellmehl and starch are treated alike in to the needs of starch manufacture, has Article 11 of Regulation No 120/67/EEC over-subsidized the already cheaper

lies in the political argument of the production of quellmehl. This difference rights'

'preservation of the acquired of in price, together with the ability to use

quellmehl manufacturers rather than in cheaper low grade flour, makes it economic necessity and the similarity of possible for the quellmehl industry to

economic conditions. In this connexion invade the market in animal feed. it must be borne in mind that the

industry can be used. lower-grade flours which are cheaper.

(g) The interchangeability of the two Similarly, there is little reason to suppose products in question has, in practice, that pre-gelatinized starch is forcing been hitherto of little importance. rye-flour cooking agents out of the

traditional market Pre-gelatinized starch On this point the Commission quotes is certainly coming to supersede the plaintiff in the main action in Case quellmehl but not specific cooking 16/77 as follows: agents because it does not possess their

qualities.

'... quellmehl has better technical

qualities. The capacity to absorb water in (h) Nor is there reason to fear that any particular is higher in the case of ... the natural advantage possessed by quellmehl; ... quellmehl has better quellmehl-based products in terms of

price of quellmehl, which is also manufacture of quellmehl from maize

considerably influenced by other factors. and rice up to an amount equal to that

The effect of this increase on the price of granted for the manufacture of starch

cooking agents ready to be marketed, like from maize and rice during the same

those manufactured by the plaintiffs in period.

the main actions, is even less significant.

Like quellmehl producers, the starch have been if the event causing the

manufacturing industry had to bear damage had not taken place is one of the substantial price increases for maize as its general principles relating to the liability

raw material. The advantage which that of the Community for damage caused by industry enjoyed in terms of price its institutions. The same principle is compared with quellmehl manufacturers illustrated by the right to have the

lay only in the maintenance of a lower consequences made good, which is production refund. The amount of the recognized in administrative law and is refund which, in the beginning, was as also common to the legal systems of the

much as 20-40 units of account per tonne Member States. fell to 18-45 units of account per tonne

in July 1975 and, after August 1975, to The plaintiffs in the main actions 10 units of account per tonne. This was accordingly request the Court to give an not enough even to come within reach of affirmative answer to the second the advantage of at least DM 100 which question. quellmehl previously enjoyed as a

3. The Commission points out that, market in animal feed components at a

even if quellmehl were reentered on the price of from DM 65 to DM 70 per 100 list in Article 11 of Regulation No kg compared with starch products

120/67/EEC of the products entitled to a fetching from DM 80 to DM 85 per 100 refund, the Council is not bound to grant kg and was thus selling at from about

a refund for quellmehl. Regulation (EEC) 80% to 82% of the price of

No 665/75 abolished the compulsory starch-based and glucose-based products.

refund which existed previously and left the decision whether a refund should be The Commission has not been able to

power. observations were made by the plaintiff in the main action in Case 117/76, There could be an exception only if the represented by Fritz Modest, the plaintiff Council's margin of discretion was in the main action in Case 16/77, confined to one decision only: that of represented by K.-D. Rathke, the

restoring unchanged and with retroactive Council, represented by the Director of

effect the right to the refund. In this its LegalService, Daniel Vignes, acting as case, there is, in any event, a choice of Agent, and the Commission, represented several possible solutions. by its Legal Adviser, Götz zur Hausen, acting as Agent.

III — The written reply to a The plaintiff in the main action in Case question put by the Court 117/76 states that, according to

information which it is unable to prove

In response to the Court's request for beyond doubt, only one undertaking in evidence to prove that quellmehl has the Federal Republic of Germany, been used for animal feed, the Interquell, has processed some 5 000 Commission produced a telex from the tonnes of into quellmehl, half of maize

the Ministry of Food is in possession of a The cost price of quellmehl is DM 98-79 report which shows that, at that time, per 100 kg while starch was, owing to the quellmehl was being offered on the refund, on offer at DM 98 per 100 kg.

RUCKDESCHEL v HAUPTZOLLAMT HAMBURG-ST. ANNEN

The plaintiff in the main action in Case covered to be discretionary (refund may 16/77 states that, while quellmehl, like be granted).'

starch, is largely used as a component of food products other than cooking agents, The Commission's reply was that, in the ways in which the two products can neither case, was quellmehl any longer be used are much the same. The mentioned by the aforesaid provision.

production costs of pre-gelatinized starch This is therefore a question which would

and of quellmehl are the same. arise only if the abolition of the refund

feed. a refund shall be granted this does not

confer any right to it on the party Referring to the statement of the plaintiff concerned. A right would be conferred

in the main action that pre-gelatinized on the party by the concerned only starch was on sale at DM 98 per 100 kg, fixing of the amount of the refund. Nor, the Commission states that this figure against this, could it be objected that the

relates to the present position whereas amount of the refund had already been the comparison of prices made by the fixed for pre-gelatinized starch and that a Commission refers to the time when the now legislative measure was not therefore

abolition of the refund was being necessary to introduce the refund; this

discussed. would amount to saying that the Council had exercised its discretion irrevocably, The fact that quellmehl was used in the once and for all, because it had fixed the animal feed industry was not merely an refund at a specific sum for starch. In the

level of the refund for the two products.

The difference between Cases 117/76 That, too, can ensure equality of

and 16/77 arising from the fact that the treatment. In the case of the 1975/76 application for grant of a refund in the marketing year, equality is a matter for first case was submitted on the date when decision by the legislature and could Article 11, as amended, of Regulation No even consist of the total abolition of the

120/67/EEC made the grant of a refund refund for pre-gelatinized starch because for the products covered by the article at the material time the refund was not

compulsory (refund shall be granted), compulsory.

whereas the application in the second

EECTreaty two questions concerning the validity of certain provisions of

Community regulations on the subject of refunds for the manufacture of

products derived from maize.

2 Since the questions referred in both cases are identical and have essentially the same object, it is proper to join the cases for the purposes of judgment.

3 The substance of the first question is whether the provisions of Article 11 of

Regulation No 120/67/EEC of the Council on the common organization of

or whether a legal measure adopted by the Council is required for this.

4 These questions were referred in connexion with proceedings for the payment of a production refund for quellmehl brought against the competent national

authorities by the manufacturers of this product, who claim that the

provisions which abolished this refund while maintaining it for starch

constitute discrimination contrary to the second subparagraph of Article 40

(3) of the Treaty.

These arrangements were identical with those established by the same

regulations for the grant of production refunds for starch and the amount of

the refunds was also the same for the two products.

Although the reason for the grant of production refunds for starch was the

need to keep prices competitive compared with the prices of substitute

products derived principally from oil, the reason for the grant of production refunds for quellmehl was, as is made clear in particular by the tenth recital in the preamble to Regulation No 120/67/EEC, the interchangeability of

'economically slight, if not non-existent'.

7 The second subparagraph of Article 40 (3) of the Treaty provides that the

common organization of agricultural markets 'shall exclude any discrimination between producers or consumers within the Community'.

Whilst this wording undoubtedly prohibits any discrimination between producers of the same product it does not refer in such clear terms to the

relationship between different industrial or trade sectors in the sphere of

processed agricultural products.

comparable situation, in particular in the sense that starch can be substituted for quellmehl in the specific use to which the latter product is traditionally put.

In this connexion it must first be noted that the Community regulations

were, until 1974, based on the assertion that such substitution was possible.

However, the plaintiffs in the main actions on the one hand, and the Council and the Commission on the other are not in agreement concerning the

continued existence of that situation.

The plaintiffs in the main actions contend that the opportunities for substitution are the same as previously, with the result that, since the

Consequently, these products must be treated in the same manner unless

differentiation is objectively justified.

9 With regard to this latter aspect, the Council and the Commission contend

that the abolition of the refund for quellmehl is justified by the fact that

quellmehl has been to a great extent diverted from its specific use in food for human consumption in order to be sold as animal feed.

Although this ground, the correctness of which is moreover disputed by the plaintiffs in the main actions, is referred to in the statement which

and not in respect of the quantities of the products used in food for human consumption.

10 In view in particular of the length of time during which the two products were given equality of treatment with regard to production refunds, it has not

been established that there are objective circumstances which could have justified altering the previous system as was done by Regulation (EEC) No 1 125/74, which put an end to this equality of treatment.

It is clear from the foregoing that the abolition, as a result of Regulation

(EEC) No 1125/74, of the refund for quellmehl, while the refund was

maintained for maize-based starch, amounts to a disregard of the principle of

Thus the provision is unlawful because of something for which it makes no

rather than on account of part of its wording. provision any

13 However, this unlawfulness cannot be removed merely by the fact that the Court, in proceedings under Article 177, rules that the contested provision is in part or in whole invalid.

judgment of 19. 10. 1977 — joined cases 117/76 and 16/77

On the other hand the conclusion must be drawn that, in law, the situation created by Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 1125/74, whereby the previous text was replaced by a new wording of Article 11 of Regulation No

120/67/EEC, is incompatible with the principle of equality and that it is for the competent institutions of the Community to adopt the measures

Communities, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not

recoverable.

As these proceedings are, in so far as the parties to the main action are

concerned, in the nature of a step in the action pending before the national

court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.

On those grounds,

RUCKDESCHEL v HAUPTZOLLAMT HAMBURG-ST. ANNEN

2. It is for the institutions competent in matters of common

agricultural policy to adopt the measures necessary to correct

this incompatibility.

Kutscher Sørensen Bosco Donner Pescatore

Mertens de Wilmars Mackenzie Stuart O'Keeffe Touffait

'gritz'; the product which continues to 1. The opinion which I have to deliver benefit from them is starch. Quellmehl, today is concerned with six cases (Joined which is by the processing of produced

Cases 64 and 113/76, Joined Cases maize, wheat or broken rice by means of 117/76 and 16/77 and Joined Cases a heat treatment helps to keep dough 124/76 and 20/77) relating to agriculture damp in the breadmaking process and is and they have one important feature in traditionally used in Germany and common: they all raise the issue of Denmark as an additive in the

observance of the principle of manufacture of rye bread. Gritz is meal

non-discrimination by the Community which is made from maize by means of a legislature. More specifically, the central purely mechanical operation and is issue is whether and under what mainly used in the brewing of beer. For conditions the principle of the main purpose for which they are

non-discrimination must be considered used, each of the two products can, to have been breached when, by means technically speaking, be replaced by of regulations, the Community starch.

authorities decide to abolish aids granted