C-35/80

JUDGMENT OF 14. 1. 1981 — CASE 35/80

which rests on observance of a fixed relationships subsisting in the common relationship between the aids in market between the one product and question. On the contrary, it implies the other. that the Community authorities enjoy 3. Article 2 (l)(a) of Regulation No a margin of discretion in the matter 986/68 does not require that a which permits them to lay down the maximum price must always be fixed relationship between the aid for for skimmed milk sold by dairies to skimmed milk and the aid for farms which use it as feed whenever skimmed-milk powder having regard the relationship between the aid for to all the market information listed skimmed milk and skimmed-milk in Article 2a (1) and to adjust that powder is fixed in such a manner that relationship in accordance with the skimmed milk benefits from a requirements of the common organ- relatively larger aid than that granted ization of the market to which the for skimmed-milk powder. The fact products involved are subject. that Commission Regulation No 2. Within the context of the determi- 1049/78 does not provide for the nation of an "appropriate relation- fixing of such a price does not ship" within the meaning of the therefore affect the validity of that second sentence of Article 2a (3) of regulation. Regulation No 986/68 between the 4. The statement of the reasons upon aid for skimmed milk and skimmed- which a regulation is based must be milk powder for use as animal feed, regarded and assessed in the context the reasons which are such as to of the body of legislation of which justify the size of the gap to be that measure forms an integral part. created between the aid for skimmed Therefore, the requirements of Article milk and the aid for skimmed-milk 190 of the EEC Treaty are satisfied if powder may not be based on the an implementing regulation contains particular position of certain under- an explicit reference to provisions of takings or groups of undertakings the basic regulation and thus allows concerned but must stem from the recognition of the criteria which were sector concerned as a whole and from taken into account when the regu- a comprehensive assessment of the lation was adopted.

DENKAVTT NEDERLAND v PRODUCTSCHAP VOOR ZUIVEL

SYNDICAT NATIONAL DES INDUSTRIELS DE L'ALIMENTATION ANIMALE, Paris,

interveners, and

PRODUCTSCHAP VOOR ZUIVEL [Dairy Board], Rijswijk,

on the interpretation of Regulation N o 986/68 of the Council of 15 July 1968 and the validity of Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1049/78 of 19 May 1978,

THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF 14. 1. 1981 — CASE 35/80

By Regu- between the amount of aid for lation No 1049/78 of 19 May 1978 skimmed-milk powder and that for (Official Journal 1978 L 134, p. 26) the skimmed milk should be equal to the Commission fixed the aid for the relationship between the number of 1978/79 milk year at 4.4 units of kilograms of skimmed milk from account per 100 kilograms in the case of which one kilogram of skimmed- skimmed milk and at 43 units of account milk powder may be obtained (at the per 100 kilograms in the case of present state of technology 10.7 to skimmed-milk powder. 10.8 kilograms) on the one hand and one kilogram of skimmed-milk powder on the other, and is Article 1

duction. The Produktschap voor Zuivel, the body entrusted with implementing 2. If Question 1 is answered in the aid in the Netherlands, granted Denkavit negative: properly interpreted, do aid at the rate of HFL 146.32 per 100 the words 'appopriate relationship' kilograms, calculated in accordance with in the second sentence of Article 2 a the above-mentioned provisions. (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 986/68 of the Council — either pursuant to Denkavit appealed against the Produkt- the principle of equality which is schap's decision, which it considered to fundamental to the Treaty, or be founded on an invalid Community pursuant to the prohibition on regulation, namely Regulation No discrimination laid down in Article

3. By judgment of 22 January 1980 the that (within the limits within which court before which the appeal had been account can be taken of the factors brought stayed the proceedings and referred to in paragraph (1) of the submitted the following questions to the said article in view or the aims of Court of Justice pursuant to Article 177 the aid) the Commission could of the EEC Treaty: not reasonably have fixed the

relationship at 9.77 and is Article 1 Advocate General, the Court decided to of Commission Regulation (EEC) open the oral procedure without any No 1049/78 for that reason not preparatory inquiry. It did, however, binding? ask the Commission to provide by I September 1980 statistical information 3. If Question 2 is also answered in the showing the changes, as from the negative: properly interpreted, does 1976/77 milk year, in the use made of Article 2 (1) (a) infine of Regulation the intervention system for skimmed- (EEC) No 986/68 of the Council milk powder. mean that a maximum price, within the meaning of that provision, must always be fixed for skimmed milk which is sold to farms for use as II — Observations submitted pur- feedingstuff, if the relationship suant to Article 20 of the between the amount of aid for Protocol on the Statute of skimmed milk and for skimmed-milk the Court of Justice of the powder is fixed in such a manner EEC that relatively greater aid is provided for skimmed milk than for skimmed- milk powder, and is Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1049/78 for Denkavit prefaces its examination of the that reason not binding, since it does questions with certain introductory not fix such a maximum price for considerations. skimmed milk? It explains at the outset that the main 4. Properly interpreted, does the litigation relates to aid for skimmed milk obligation to state reasons set out in and aid for skimmed-milk powder only Article 190 of the Treaty mean that in so far as those products are intended in Commission Regulation (EEC) for feeding calves, which constitutes No 1049/78 insufficient reasons are moreover the principal use for those stated for the relationship applicable products. under that regulation between the amount of aid for skimmed milk and Skimmed-milk powder is merely the that for skimmed-milk powder and is result of the dehydration of skimmed Article 1 of the said regulation for milk. On average, about 10.75 kilograms that reason not binding?" of the latter are required in order to obtain one kilogram of skimmed-milk 4. In accordance with Article 20 of the powder. Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, written obser- The two products, which in reality are vations were submitted by Denkavit and only one product presented in different the three associations intervening in forms, have the same uses. As a raw its support, all represented by W. material intended for fattening claves, Alexander, of the Bar of The Hague, they are interchangeable. They are and by the Commission of the European however supplied to consumers by, or Communities, represented by H. Bronk- through the medium of, two types of horst, a member of its Legal Department, producer, namely dairies in the case of acting as Agent. skimmed milk, and independent manu- facturers of compound feedingstuffs in On hearing the report of the Judge- the case of skimmed-milk powder Rapporteur and the views of the incorporated in compound feedingstuffs.

These two categories of producer are matter contained in the liquid skimmed competitors in a very important market. milk. This artificially created difference in the cost price of the products in Since the price of beef and veal is not question may assume crucial importance guaranteed by the common organization in the choice of supplier since it leads to of the market it has not been possible to a difference of HFL 22 on the total sum fix a high Community price for milk expended on feedingstuffs for fattening a because that would have rendered that calf.

permanent. By virtue of Regulation No 986/68, the So far as the first question is concerned, aid thus introduced is paid to dairies in Denkavit considers that the term "appro- the case of liquid skimmed milk intended priate relationship" occurring in the for animal feed and to the manufacturers second sentence of Article 2a (3) of of compound feedingstuffs in the case of Regulation No 986/68 should not be skimmed-milk powder incorporated in contrasted with the term "equal" which those feedingstuffs. is used in Article 2 (1) (d) of the same regulation and that both terms express Under the second sentence of Article 2 a one and the same principle. (3) of Regulation No 986/68, aid for

In (4.4 x 10.75). The aid granted for 100 order to ensure that aid is only granted kilograms of skimmed-milk powder is for the dry matter of skimmed milk thus less, by 4.30 units of account, than recourse was had to the concept of an that granted for 100 kilograms of the dry "appropriate relationship" which allows

account to be taken of the average A breach of equality of treatment was composition of liquid skimmed milk established by the Court in the cases produced in the common market as a known as the quellmehl and gritz cases whole. (Joined Cases 117/76 and 16/77 Ruckdeschel & Co. and Another and Both the requirement of an "appropriate Diamalt AG [1977] ECR 1753 relationship" and the rule of "equality" (quellmehl) and Joined Cases 124/76 are based on the same principle: the and 20/77 SA Moulins et Huileries de incidence of the aid on the utilization of Pont-à-Mousson and Société Coopérative skimmed-milk powder must be the same "Providence Agrìcole de la Champagne" as its incidence on the utilization of [1977] ECR 1795 (gritz)).

negative. Even if it is assumed that the appropriate relationship is not necessarily that existing between a given weight of Moreover, no objective justification may skimmed-milk powder and the quantity be invoked for the difference ' in of liquid skimmed milk which must be treatment and the artificial advantage dehydrated in order to obtain that which dairies enjoy. quantity of powder, that still does not mean that the appropriate relationship In the main proceedings the may be the relationship adopted by the Produktschap submitted that the Commission. relatively higher level of aid for skimmed milk is warranted by the Community's According to the case-law of the Court, concern to promote, with a view to the general principle of equality, which stabilizing the market in milk products, finds particular expression in the the use on Community farms or as large prohibition of discrimination contained a quantity as possible of skimmed milk in in Article 40 of the EEC Treaty, requires liquid form for feeding animals so as to that similar situations shall not be treated restrain the production of skimmed-milk differently unless differentiation is powder and thus reduce the intervention objectively justified. buying of that product.

That consideration might be valid if it the consumption of skimmed-milk referred to the situation in 1968 when powder. Indeed, skimmed-milk powder there was a general aid for skimmed- which is incorporated into a compound milk powder and skimmed milk for feedingstuff is taken into consideration feeding all species of animal, without for the grant of aid only if the distinction. Since then, however, the compound feedingstuff contains more market has changed greatly and the use than 60 % by weight of skimmed-milk of milk for feeding young animals other powder. Liquid skimmed milk on the than calves has been exposed to fierce other hand is always taken into competition from protein-based veg- consideration where it is used for the etable products. In that sector, therefore, feeding of animals, irrespective of the a very large aid for skimmed milk was quantity. Consequently, the fact of fixed, which would indeed promote the giving a relative advantage to the use of disposal of that product as compared liquid skimmed milk may lead to a with vegetable products and thus have reduction in the total consumption of the effect of restricting the production of skimmed milk and skimmed-milk powder skimmed-milk powder. However, in the taken together. calf sector skimmed milk was never in competition with protein sources other than skimmed-milk powder with the result that the larger aid granted for it In short, it may be said that the relatively could at most lead to a reduction in the higher level of aid for liquid skimmed use of skimmed-milk powder which milk on the one hand favours, in an arti- would then have to be offered as such ficial manner, dairies (and manufacturers for intervention. of compound feedingstuffs who are linked to dairies) to the detriment of individual manufacturers of compound feedingstuffs and, on the other hand, Moreover, in 1974 the amending regu- does not succeed in increasing the total lation, Regulation No 666/74, inserted consumption of skimmed milk and in Regulation No 986/68 more specific skimmed-milk powder taken together. criteria for the fixing of the aids for skimmed-milk powder and skimmed milk. Those criteria contain no factor On the basis of these considerations the justifying the inequality in the aids conclusion ought to be reached that it granted in the calf sector. was not open to the Commission to fix a relatively larger aid for skimmed milk and that accordingly Article 1 of Regu- The argument that the difference in lation No 1049/78 is invalid. treatment is justified by the fact that only skimmed-milk powder may be offered for intervention is devoid of relevance The third question arises only if the two since a dairy may, if it wishes, convert preceding questions are answered in the skimmed milk into skimmed-milk negative. powder.

"(1) Aid may be granted for: In 1968 there existed such a difference between the aids. That difference was abolished in 1972 and the Commission, (a) skimmed milk produced and by Regulation No 675/72, abolished the processed in a dairy differen- maximum price fixed by Regulation tiated from other skimmed milk No 1105/68. in a manner to be specified and sold to farms where it is used as feed at a price not exceeding In effect, as from the 1972/73 milk year any maximum price which may the Commission coi. dered that the be fixed; relatively similar amount ot the aids made the fixing of a maximum price superfluous. A difference between the » aids was again introduced as from 1 May 1976. At that time the Commission ought to have again fixed a maximum price but it did not do so either then or sub- That provision is founded in the second sequently. By fixing, as from 1976, a recital in the preamble to the said regu- relatively larger aid for liquid skimmed lation, which is worded thus: milk without at the same time fixing a maximum price for it, the Commission contravened the aforementioned Article " . . . payment of aid to the dairy for 2 (l)(a) of Regulation No 986/68 of the skimmed milk should, where appro- Council. priate, be subject to the condition that the dairy has not charged a higher price for the processed skimmed milk than any The fourth question is concerned with maximum price which may be fixed . . . " whether adequate reasons have been stated for the relationship between the aid for skimmed milk and that for As appears clearly from that recital, the skimmed-milk powder adopted in Regu- aforementioned Article 2 does not confer lation No 1049/78. on the Commission a discretionary power to fix or not to fix a maximum price for subsidized skimmed milk but The relatively larger aid for skimmed places on that institution the obligation milk was introduced by Commission of making the grant to the dairy of aid Regulation (EEC) No 935/76 which for skimmed milk subject, where appro- gives no indication of any reason priate, to a maximum selling price. justifying the alteration of the previously existing relationship between the aid for skimmed-milk powder and the aid for The event justifying the fixing of a liquid skimmed milk intended for animal maximum price, which is referred to in feed. The difference was subsequently Article 2 (l)(a) of Regulation No maintained by Regulations (EEC)

The Commission regulations in question, This conclusion is not invalidated by the particularly Regulation No 1049/78, in wording of Article 2 (1)(d) of Regulation no way indicate why an additional aid No 986/68 which, on the contrary, only was introduced for liquid skimmed milk confirms it. That provision requires that when the aids had been the same for the same aid be granted for skimmed- years. milk powder produced in a dairy and used in the manufacture of compound feedingstuffs as for skimmed milk The absence of any statement of the produced in the same fashion for the reasons upon which it is based means same purposes and subsequently mixed therefore that Regulation No 1049/78 is in powder form with compound invalid since it contravenes Article 190 of feedingstuffs. the EEC Treaty. It is suggested that the appropriate course for the Court to Thus there is an obligation to pay adopt is to declare the provision under relatively equal aid for two products challenge to be incompatible with the which in the final analysis are identical applicable superior rules and principles and which are in a similar situation and and to add that it is for the Commission cannot therefore be treated in a different to take the necessary measures to remove manner. No such obligation is that incompatibility. specifically laid down for the other products mentioned in Article 2 (1). The Commission of the European- Therefore, the general rule contained in Communities considers that there is no the second sentence of Article 2a (3),

DENKAVIT NEDERLAND v PRODUKTSCHAP VOOR ZUIVEL

Nor is Regulation No 1049/78 incompatible with the prohibition of In fixing a relatively smaller aid for discrimination contained in Article 40 (3) skimmed-milk powder than that for of the EEC Treaty. So far as the alleged skimmed milk the Commission took into discrimination between producers is consideration various factors. First, it concerned, it must be noted that manu­ considered it appropriate to confer a facturers of skimmed-milk powder use small advantage on a product the manu­ special, expensive plant in the facture of which, in contrast to preparation of their products. They are skimmed-milk powder, is not especially therefore placed in a situation which is demanding in energy and the use of objectively different from that of which had undergone a certain decline in producers of liquid skimmed milk so that recent years because of the preference a difference in treatment by the shown by farmers for skimmed-milk Community legislature appears justified. powder. Secondly, it did not consider it necessary also to give the certainty and advantage of a relatively high price to producers of skimmed-milk powder, who In regard to the comparability of the already have the advantage of being able products, it appears from the case-law of to offer their product for intervention. the Court that two products must be treated similarly if they are inter­ changeable and the choice between one or the other depends essentially on the These factors satisfactorily justify the costs of supply. But, by reason of the grant of a slightly higher level of aid for advantages, as compared with liquid skimmed milk than for skimmed-milk skimmed milk, which skimmed-milk powder. powder possesses in terms of storage, conservation and quantities required, it is impossible to state that the use of one or In regard to the third question, it is clear other of these two products depends from the wording of Article 2 (l)(a) that essentially on the costs of supply. the Commission is not obliged to fix a maximum price at which dairies must sell skimmed-milk powder to undertakings Denkaviťs arguments are therefore where the same is used for feeding cattle, unsound. So far as a comparison although it is empowered to do so. For between dairies on the one hand and that reason, a regulation which does not manufacturers of compound feeding- fix such a maximum price cannot be stuffs on the other hand is involved, the regarded as valid. comparison relates to different producers between whom no comparison can be made and to the manufacture of So far as the fourth question is products which are not comparable. concerned, the Commission considers that it duly satisfied the requirement to state the reasons upon which the regu­ As for the second question, it should lation was based by referring in its regu­ be observed that in exercising the dis­ lation to the factors listed in Article 2a of

2 Those questions have been raised in the context of a dispute between a manufacturer of compound animal feedingstuffs and the Produktschap voor Zuivel, which is the national intervention body in the Netherlands entrusted with implementing the Community system of aids for milk. The dispute is concerned with the amount of the aid for skimmed-milk powder granted to the said manufacturer by that body in respect of the quantity of that product used between 1 and 15 December 1978.

DENK/WIT NEDERLAND v PRODUCTSCHAP VOOR ZUIVEL

First question

6 In its first question the national court asks the Court of Justice whether the words "appropriate relationship", which occur in the second sentence of Article 2a (3) of Regulation No 986/68, require that the aid for skimmed milk and the aid for skimmed-milk powder must in every case be fixed according to the criterion which is set forth in Article 2 (l)(d) of that regu- lation and which is based on observance of the relationship which exists between one kilogram of skimmed-milk powder and the number of kilograms of skimmed milk from which the said quantity of skimmed-milk powder may be obtained. That relationship is approximately 10.75 kilograms of skimmed milk to each kilogram of skimmed-milk powder. In putting that

JUDGMENT OF 14. 1. 1981 — CASE 35/80

question, the national court seeks to ascertain whether, because it fixes for skimmed milk an amount of aid which does not respect the above-mentioned criterion but is equivalent to a relationship of 9.77 kilograms of skimmed milk per kilogram of skimmed-milk powder and thereby confers on skimmed milk an advantage over skimmed-milk powder, Commission Regulation No 1049/78 is contrary to Article 2 (l)(d) and the second sentence of Article 2a (3) of Regulation No 986/68 of the Council.

7 In effect, the issue which the Court is thus called upon to decide is whether the "appropriate relationship" between the aid for liquid skimmed milk and the aid for skimmed-milk powder which is stipulated for by the second sentence of Article 2a (3) of Regulation No 986/68 is quite simply the fixed relationship laid down in Article 2 (l)(d) of the same regulation.

9 This provisions draws a distinction between two categories of skimmed milk: on the one hand, milk falling under subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c), which is

DENKAVrr NEDERLAND v PRODUCTSCHAP VOOR ZUIVEL

used directly "as feed" and, on the other hand, the specific products falling under subparagraph (d), namely milk used "in the manufacture of compound feedingstuffs".

10 It is only in subparagraph (d) that Article 2 (1) adopts the principle that the aid for skimmed milk and the aid for skimmed-milk powder must be fixed in such a manner as to respect the relationship which exists between a given quantity of skimmed milk and the quantity of skimmed-milk powder which can be obtained from it. That form of drafting shows clearly that the application of that principle does not extend to all categories of skimmed milk but applies exclusively as regards the products expressly mentioned in subparagraph (d), that is to say milk "produced and processed in the dairy and used in the manufacture of compound feedingstuffs". It is in fact indisputable that, at that stage of utilization, liquid skimmed milk and skimmed-milk powder must be regarded as comparable products.

1 1 Accordingly, it is only as respects skimmed milk produced and processed in a dairy and used in the manufacture of compound feedingstuffs that the producer of skimmed-milk powder intended for the same purpose may, by virtue of the provisions of Article 2 (l)(d) of the said regulation, claim that the aid for each of the products should be laid down in accordance with the fixed relationship indicated by those provisions.

15 Commission Regulation N o 1049/78 is precisely in accordance with those rules. In fact, the first recital in the preamble thereto refers expressly to Article 2a (1) of Regulation N o 986/68 of the Council, thus showing that in fixing the aid for skimmed milk at 4.40 units of account per 100 kilograms and the aid for skimmed-milk powder at 43 units of account per 100 kilograms the Commission took into consideration the factors listed in that provision in order to establish between those aids an "appropriate relationship" within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 2a (3).

16 Moreover, the application of such a "relationship" between the aid for skimmed milk and that for skimmed-milk powder is not contrary to the prohibition of discrimination laid down in the second paragraph of Article 40 (3) of the Treaty.

17 Indeed, the fact that the fixing of the aid for skimmed milk used "as feed" must take account of several factors relating to the state of the market for that product, considered in particular in comparison with the market for skimmed-milk powder, in itself precludes a relatively larger aid for skimmed milk than that for skimmed-milk powder from being regarded as involving discrimination as against the latter product since the difference between the two aids corresponds to the needs of the markets in question and the requirements of the common organization by which the said products are covered.

18 For all these reasons the answer to the first question must therefore be that, by the words "appropriate relationship", the second sentence of Article 2a (3) of Regulation N o 986/68 of the Council does not require that the aids for skimmed milk and for skimmed-milk powder intended for animal feed and lying outside the scope of Article 2 (1) (d) must necessarily

22 On this matter it is not open to dispute, first, that the conditions under which skimmed milk and skimmed-milk powder used as feed are marketed and utilized are not identical, particularly because of the advantages in terms of conservation, storage and quantities required which skimmed-milk powder

JUDGMENT OF 14. 1. 1981 — CASE 35/80

offers in comparison with liquid skimmed milk and, secondly, that skimmed- milk powder has access to other markets, such as that for feedingstuffs for animals other than young calves under more favourable conditions than liquid skimmed milk.

23 It is also indisputable that skimmed-milk powder m a y benefit from the advantages offered by the intervention system provided for in Article 6 of Regulation N o 804/68, whereas skimmed milk is excluded from access to such a system.

24 Moreover, the opportunity of being offered for intervention, which is available only to skimmed-milk powder, is the source of difficulties in the functionining of the common organization of the market in question since it has precisely the effect of encouraging the processing of skimmed milk into skimmed-milk powder so that it may gain access to the intervention system with the result that it contributes to the aggravation of the financial burden afflicting that system. T h e figures supplied by the Commission in answer to a written question put by the European Parliament o n 23 November 1979 (Written Question N o 1150/79, Official Journal C 66, p . 46) reveal precisely that in 1978 the processing of skimmed milk into skimmed-milk powder increased by 8.9% in comparison with the previous year.

29 As appears from the very wording of this provision, the fixing of a maximum price for the sale by dairies of skimmed milk to farms which use it for feed is only provided for in regard to that tpye of milk and is envisaged as a possibility and not as a necessary condition for the grant of the aid.

30 To submit, as does the plaintiff in the main proceedings, that such a possibility consists in the application of an "appropriate relationship" which does not respect the fixed relationship mentioned in Article 2 (1) (d) of Regulation No 986/68 amounts to depriving the second sentence of Article 2a (3) of that regulation of any useful purpose, since the mandatory application of a maximum price whenever the aids in question are not laid down in accordance with a fixed relationship would have precisely the result of introducing into the criteria governing the fixing of the aid for skimmed milk which are laid down by that provision an automatic mechanism which is excluded by Article 2 (1) (a) of Regulation No 986/68 and which is contrary to the principles underlying Article 2a (1) of that regulation.

31 Having regard to these factors, therefore, the answer to the third question must be that Article 2 (1) (a) of Regulation No 986/68 of the Council does not require that a maximum price must always be fixed for skimmed milk sold by dairies to farms which use it as feed whenever the relationship between the aid for skimmed milk and skimmed-milk powder is fixed in such a manner that skimmed milk benefits from a relatively larger aid than that granted for skimmed-milk powder. The fact that Commission Regulation

35 The first recital in the preamble to Commission Regulation No 1049/78 contains an express reference to that provision and thus allows recognition of the criteria which it takes into account both for the fixing of the aid for skimmed milk and for the fixing of the margin to be maintained between that aid and the aid for skimmed-milk powder. The second recital in the preamble to that regulation states that the amounts of aid fixed by the regu- lation follow from the application of those rules "to the present market situation".

36 Placed thus in the context of Regulation No 986/68, within which it takes effect, Regulation No 1049/78 satisfies the requirement, imposed by Article 190 of the Treaty, to state the reasons upon which it is based.

Costs

The costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, which has submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. Since 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.

DENKAVIT NEDERLAND v PRODUKTSCHAP VOOR ZUIVEL

On those grounds,

OPINION OF MR MAYRAS — CASE 35/80

4. Placed in the context of Regulation No 986/68, within which it takes effect, Regulation No 1049/78 satisfies the requirement, imposed by Article 190 of the Treaty, to state the reasons upon which it is based.

Mertens de Wilmars Pescatore Mackenzie Stuart

O'Keeffe Bosco Touffait Due

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 14 January 1981.

A. Van Houtte J. Mertens de Wilmars Registrar President