C-154/83

plaintiffs in the main proceedings, and

Bundesanstalt für landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung [Federal Office for the Organization of Agricultural Markets], Frankfurt am Main, defendant in the main proceedings,

Dr Otto Suwelack Nachfolger KG, Billerbeck, Federal Republic of Germany, party joined in the main proceedings,

on the interpretation of Articles 6, 6 (a) and 18 of Regulation (EEC) No 1259/72 of the Commission of 16 June 1972 on the disposal of butter at a reduced price to certain Community processing undertakings (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 559), as amended by Regulations of the Commission Nos 2161/72 of 10 October 1972, 1237/73 of 10 May 1973, and 1910/73 of 13 July 1973 (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1972, 10 to 31 October, p. 5; Official Journal 1973, L 128, p. 1; L 196, p. 10),

THE COURT (First Chamber),

composed of: G. Bosco, President of Chamber, T. Koopmans and R. Joliét, Judges,

The facts of the case, the course of the condition, the plaintiffs in the main procedure and the observations submitted proceedings lodged processing securities pursuant to Article 20 of the Protocol on amounting to DM 92 001.42 (in Hoche's the Statute of the Court of Justice of the case) and DM 224 744 (in Best's case), in EEC may be summarized as follows: the form of a bank guarantee (Bank­ bürgschaft). I — Facts and written procedure Hoche sold a consignment of 22 050 kg of Regulation No 1259/72 of the Commission butter direct to the undertaking Dr Otto of 16 June 1972 (cited above) and the Suwelack Nachfolger KG, the party joined various regulations amending it were in the main proceedings [hereinafter adopted with a view to reducing butter referred to as 'Suwelack']. Best sold a stocks by providing for the sale of butter at consignment of 58 800 kg of butter to a reduced price by tender to certain Hoche, which sold it after melting it down and concentrating it to Suwelack. Suwelack Community processing undertakings. had given Hoche an undertaking that it Tenderers must undertake to process the would process the concentrated butter in butter in a certain way, and successful accordance with the above-mentioned EEC tenderers are required, before taking over regulation. each quantity, to lodge a processing security which may be released only for quantities in respect of which they have furnished proof Suwelack processed the concentrated butter to the competent authority that the pre­ and presented to the customs authorities for scribed conditions have been met. forwarding to the supervisory authorities a certificate of the use of the raw materials As is stated in the grounds of the orders for and a processing declaration dated 23 July reference, the undertaking Joseph Hoche 1974. In its processing declaration it con­ (hereinafter referred to as 'Hoche') and the firmed that it had manufactured from the undertaking Roomboterfabriek 'De Beste concentrated butter a powder for the Boter' (hereinafter referred to as 'Best') preparation of edible ices falling within respectively purchased, on 19 March 1974 subheading 18.06 D or 21.07 F of the and 19 June 1974, 120 000 kg and 90 000 Common Customs Tariff. kg of butter from German intervention stocks from the Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle It became apparent that a considerable für Fette [Fats Import and Supply Office]. quantity of the powder was not sold by The Bundesanstalt für landwirtschaftliche Suwelack to ice-cream manufacturers. The Marktordnung, the defendant in the main Betriebsprüfungsstelle Zoll [fiscal audit proceedings, is the successor in law of the office] of the Oberfinanzbezirk [tax district] Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle. The sales took Münster found that it had sold the powder, place subject to the condition that the butter inter alia, to Lebensmittelwerke Bleckede must be processed into concentrated butter, AG, which had separated out the sugar and from which specified products were then to sold it, inter alia, to Karina Schokoladen­ be manufactured, one of which was powder fabrik, and had then processed the rest of for the preparation of edible ices. As a the powder into milk powder preparations guarantee that they would comply with that of the types 250 W, 250 S, 78/22 and

80/20, containing varying proportions of constituent parts by further processing ice-cream powder. The Zolltechnische and those ingredients have been further Prüfungs- und Lehranstalt [Customs processed into milk powder prep Laboratory and Training College] of arations and chocolate? Cologne examined samples from that production and reached the conclusion that (b) Does the successful tenderer's duty to the powder at issue must be regarded as furnish proof pursuant to the first cream powder containing added sugar sentence of Article 18 (2) of Regulation falling within tariff heading 04.02.

purposes. By Decisions No 4 of 20 January Regulation Nol259/72 as amended 1975 and No 14 of 19 February 1975, the by Article 1 (2) of Regulation No Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Fette 2161/72? declared the plaintiffs' processing security forfeit and demanded payment of the sums (c) Does Article 6 (a) (which was inserted involved. The plaintiffs' objections against by Regulation (EEC) No 1910/73 of those decisions were rejected by it on 3 the Commission of 13 July 1973

following questions: Nos ex 18.06 D or ex 21.07 F of the Common Customs Tariff' in Article 6 '(a) Are the requirements of Article 6 (1) (1) (c) as amended by Regulation No (c) (third option) of Regulation (EEC) 2161/72 represent the sole product of No 1259/72 of the Commission of 16 that category into which the butter may June 1972 (Official Journal, English be processed or, within the framework Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 559) as of the further processing permitted by amended by Article 1 (2) of Regulation - Article 6 (a), may all the products (EEC) No 2161/72 of the Commission falling within subheadings Nos ex 18.06 of 10 October 1972 (Official Journal, D and ex 21.07 F be manufactured English Special Edition 1972 (10 to without the security's being forfeited? 31 October), p. 5) to be regarded as satisfied even if the powder for the (e) Does the fact that Article 18 (2) as preparation of edible ices falling within amended by Regulation No 1237/73 tariff subheadings Nos ex 18.06 D or makes no reference to Article 6 (a) ex 21.07 F of the Common Customs mean that an infringement of Article 6 Tariff has ultimately not been used for (a) does not affect the release of the the preparation of edible ices and if security or must the release of the that powder has been separated into its security be refused if it is established

By order of 14 March 1984, the Court also (g) If the addition of sodium caseinate is decided, pursuant to Article 95 (1) and (2) held to be of no significance, is it of the Rules of Procedure, to assign the relevant for the release of the security joined cases to the First Chamber. under Article 18 (2), first sentence, of Regulation No 1259/72 as amended by Article 3 of Regulation No 1237/73 II — Written observations submitted under that the successful tenderer is unable to Article 20 of the Protocol on the Statute of prove that the powder for the the Court of Justice of the European preparation of edible ices mixed with Community sodium caseinate has been dispatched to Member States such as Belgium, The undertakings Hoche and Best submitted Luxembourg and the Netherlands answers to the following questions: which allow the use of the binding agent even for ice-cream powder?' A — Is it necessary, for the purposes of the decision on whether the processing The orders making the reference were security should be released, to lodged at the Court Registry on 27 July ascertain whether the powder for the 1983. preparation of edible ices has been subjected to further processing at a later stage? In accordance with Article 20 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, written observations The plaintiffs state in essence that Article 6 were submitted by Hoche and Best, the (1) (c) of Regulation No 1259/72 is explicit plaintiffs in the main proceedings, in requiring only the making of a processed represented by R. Leiers, Rechtsanwalt; the product and that it does not contain any Bundesanstalt für landwirtschaftliche requirements as to the end use of the Marktordnung, the defendant in the main processed product. Consequently the end proceedings, represented by Mr Schwieck use of the product has no incidence on the and Mr Wolski; Dr Otto Suwelack Nach­ release of the security provided it is folger KG, the party joined in the main established that the requirements expressly proceedings, represented by K. H. Wiech, laid down in Regulation No 1259/72 are Rechtsanwalt; and the Commission of the satisfied.

B — What conditions must be satisfied in Since, for the reasons stated above, the order for the security to be released? subsequent use of the processed product no longer requires verification, the successful The plaintiffs in the main proceedings tenderer's duty to furnish proof similarly consider in particular the question whether cannot extend to the stages of processing the examination of the conditions for the following the production of powder for the release of the security may and must have preparation of edible ices within the regard to any further processing and meaning of Article 6 (1) (c) of Regulation marketing after the processed product No 1259/72. That interpretation' is con referred to in Article 6 (1) (c) has been firmed by the judgment of the Court in

Article 6 (a) of Regulation No 1259/72. In support of that contention, the plaintiffs They say that under Article 6 of Regulation refer to the preamble to Commission Regu No 1259/72, the purchaser of butter is lation No 1910/73 cited above, which refers required only to have the butter processed solely to products falling within tariff into concentrated butter (paragraph (1) (a)), heading 19.08. to have incorporated into it in the course of Alternatively, the plaintiffs submit that even that processing certain specified substances if Article 6 (a) also applies to powder for ((1) (b)), and to have the intermediate the preparation of edible ices falling within product resulting from that operation tariff subheadings 18.06 D or 21.07 F, it processed into certain specified products does not follow, for the reasons stated at B, ((1) (c)), including powders for the above, that the security is forfeit if the preparation of edible ices.

HOCHE AND DE BESTE BOTER v BALM

E — May infringement of Article 6 (a) administrative authorities should be required affect the release of the security? to ascertain whether the national rules on ice-cream manufacture have been observed. The answer to that question must therefore The plaintiffs take the view that for the be negative. The plaintiffs add that an af­ reasons set out at B, above, none of the firmative answer would considerably limit steps taken in stages of processing sub­ the practical effect of the regulation, since it sequent to the production of the processed is difficult for a successful tenderer to product (powder for the preparation of furnish proof that the national rules have edible ices) is to be taken into consideration been complied with in stages of processing for the purposes of the examination prior to subsequent to the manufacture of the release of the security. That contention is powder for the preparation of edible ices. borne out in particular by Article 18 (2) and (3) of the regulation, which provides for immediate release of the security when the In written observations submitted to the processed product has been produced within Court, the Bundesanstalt fir landwirt- the prescribed period. An infringement of schaftliche Marktordnung contends that the Article 6 (a) after the processed product has Court should give the following answers to been produced cannot, therefore, affect the the questions referred for a preliminary release of the security. ruling:

JUDGMENT OF 2. 5. 1985 — JOINED CASES 154 AND 155/83

In order that the security may be released under Article 18 (2) (first sentence) of The defendant contends that in view of the Regulation No 1259/72 as amended by observations set out above, it must be held Article 3 of Regulation No 1237/73, it is that the aim of the regulations on the necessary for the successful tenderer to disposal of surplus butter can be attained prove that the powder mixed with sodium only if the powder referred to in Article 6 caseinate has been dispatched to Member (1) (c) is used exclusively for the States which allow the use of the binding preparation of ice-cream; hence it must be a agent in the manufacture of powder for the condition for the release of the security that preparation of edible ices. the powder should actually have been used for the manufacture of ice-cream, from which it follows that the duty to furnish In support of those submissions, the proof must extend to the stages of defendant advances the following argu­ processing following the making of the ments. products referred to in Article 6 (1) (c).

HOCHE AND DE BESTE BOTER v BALM

JUDGMENT OF 2. 5. 1985 — JOINED CASES 154 AND 155/83

accepted. In the alternative, Suwelack In support of its submissions, Suwelack cites suggests the following answer: the judgment of the Court in Joined Cases 99 and 100/76 cited above, and adduces the Article 6 (a), which was inserted into Regu­ following arguments. lation No 1259/72 by Regulation No 1910/73, applies only to processed products falling within heading 19.08 of the Common A — Questions (a) and (b) Customs Tariff within the meaning of Article 6 of Regulation No 1259/72. It states in substance that the principle of Question (d) legal certainty, as interpreted by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 9 July 1981 (Case 169/80 Administration des douanes v This question calls for a reply only if the Gondrand Frères SA and Garancini SA suggested answer to Question (e) or alter­ [1981] ECR 1931), requires that rules natively the suggested answer to Question imposing conditions on individuals should (c) is not accepted. In the alternative be clearly expressed in the relevant Suwelack suggests the following answer: provisions. The conditions at issue in this case make no provision of any kind Any processed product referred to in Article regarding the subsequent use within the 6 (1) (c) of Regulation No 1259/72 may prescribed period of the processed product. subsequently be processed into any other Furthermore, an interpretation other than processed product covered by that subpara­ the one it advocates would make the release graph provided that the resulting products of the security under Article 18 of Regu­ fall within one of the tariff headings lation No 1259/72 merely provisional, a referred to therein and that products falling consequence which cannot be justified on within any other tariff heading are not the basis of the provisions. produced at an intermediate stage of such processing. B — Question (c) Question (e)

D — Question (e) powders to be sold to the consumer. In any event, the fact that the product is dispatched to such a Member State does not mean that Articles 6, 6 (a) and 18 of Regulation No it will ultimately be consumed there, and 1259/72 must be read in conjunction with besides the provisions at issue do not one another. Suwelack considers that if the contain any restrictions as to the place of Commission had wished to make the release destination. of the security dependent on compliance with the restrictions contained in Article 6 In its written observations, the Commission (a) when it adopted that article, it would of the European Communities proposes that have amended Article 18. Any other interp­ the Court should answer the questions retation would be contrary to the principle referred to it for a preliminary ruling as of legal certainty as interpreted in the follows: aforementioned judgment of the Court. Forfeiture of the security on the ground of (1) Regulation No 1259/72 as amended by non-compliance with the restriction on Regulation N ° s 2161/72, 1237/73 and processing introduced by Article 6 (a) would 1910/73 must be interpreted as in any event be a penalty disproportionate meaning: to the infringement. (a) that as a general principle, the forms of processing enumerated in E — Questions (/) and (g) Article 6 (1) (c) also represent the final destination of the butter purchased at a reduced price and Suwelack submits that the national that further processing is permitted legislation on foodstuffs is of no relevance only if the criteria contained in to the application of Regulation No Article 6 (a) are complied with, that 1259/72. The question of which States is to say, if the products resulting permit the marketing of the ice-cream from such subsequent processing therefore has no effect on the classification also fall within one of the tariff of a product as a processed product covered headings referred to in Article 6 (1) by Regulation No 1259/72. That regulation (c) and if processing does not create refers solely to the relevant tariff headings. a product falling within any other This interpretation receives further support tariff heading; from a line of decisions of the Court in which items of national legislation relating (b) that the burden of proof placed to foodstuffs have been held to constitute upon the successful tenderer by measures having an effect equivalent to Article 18 (2) also extends to stages quantitative restrictions within the meaning of processing subsequent to those of Article 30 of the EEC Treaty. referred to in Article 6 (1) (c); and

In support of those propositions the The Commission's interpretation is not Commission refers in the first place to the contradicted by the fact that Article 18 (2) aims of the Community regulations. It was not amended when Article 6 (a) was argues in favour of a strict interpretation: introduced. Article 6 (a) clearly constitutes a the destination of the butter sold at a partial exception to the exclusive list of reduced price must be restricted to the cases permitted forms of processing contained in expressly allowed. Article 6 (1) (c). By its nature it must be read into that provision and should therefore also be included within the scope A — The definition of final processing of the burden of proof placed on the suc­ (Questions (a) and (d)) cessful tenderer by Article 18 (2). At most it may be conceded that the plaintiffs were not subject to a formal duty of proof as regards In the Commission's view, Article 6 (a), the requirements of Article 6 (a), but that which was inserted by Regulation No admission is of no relevance to this case. 1910/73, made the system established by Article 6 of Regulation No 1259/72 more flexible by permitting further processing of C — The scope of Article 6 (a) (Question the products referred to as the end products (c)) subject to the two-fold condition that the product of such further processing should also fall within one of the tariff headings In the Commission's view, a provision enumerated in Article 6 (1) (c) and that a framed in clear and unequivocal terms takes product falling within another heading of precedence over an ambiguously worded the Common Customs Tariff is not recital in a preamble for the simple reason produced in the process. Those conditions that it is higher-ranking as a source of law. are cumulative. In this case, as it appears The fact that only tariff heading 19.08 from the national court's findings of fact, a received a mention in the drafting of Regu­ product not falling within either tariff sub­ lation No 1910/73 cannot therefore limit heading 18.06 D or 21.07 F was produced the scope of Article 6 (a). On the contrary, when the sugar was separated from the that article must apply to all the products powder and sold separately. referred to in Article 6 (1) (c). In any event a more restrictive interpretation would not make it possible to release the security B — The extent of the duty to furnish proof furnished by the plaintiffs. (Questions (b) and (e))

retail in a Member State which permits the anwalt, the defendant in the main proceed­ addition of the agent. In fact it has been ings, represented by Wolfgang Wolski, clearly established that the powder mixture acting as Agent, the party joined to the was never used for the manufacture of ice­ main proceedings, represented by Klaus-H. cream. In this case, since the provisions on Wiech, Rechtsanwalt, and the Commission the final destination of the product laid of the European Communities, represented down in Regulation No 1259/72 have been by Dr Peter Karpenstein, acting as Agent, infringed, the addition of sodium caseinate and Noël Devisch, an official of the is in any event irrelevant for the purposes of European Communities, acting as expert, interpreting Article 18 (2) of the regulation. presented oral argument at the sitting on 17 May 1984. III — Oral procedure The plaintiffs in the main proceedings, The Advocate General delivered his opinion represented by Dr Rolf Leiers, Rechts­ at the sitting on 5 July 1984.

Decision

1 By two orders of 30 May 1983, which were received at the Court on 27 July 1983, the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof [Higher Administrative Court of Hesse] referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty a number of questions on the interpretation of Articles 6, 6 (a) and 18 of Regu­ lation (EEC) No 1259/72 of the Commission of 16 June 1972 on the disposal of butter at a reduced price to certain Community processing undertakings (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 559), as amended by Regulations of the Commission Nos 2161/72 of 10 October 1972, 1237/73 of 10 May 1973, and 1910/73 of 13 July 1973 (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1972, 10 to 31 October, p. 5; Official Journal 1973, L 128, p. 1; L 196, p. 10).

— products falling within heading No 19.08 of the Common Customs Tariff, or

— edible ices falling within subheadings Nos ex 18.06 B and ex 21.07 C of the Common Customs Tariff, of a milkfat content of less than 15 %, or

— powder for the preparation of edible ices falling within subheading No ex 18.06 D or ex 21.07 F of the Common Customs Tariff, of a milkfat content of 33 % or less and suitable for consumption without any treatment other than the addition of water and refrigeration.

Processing into the products listed above shall take place in the Community within 120 days from the day of removal from storage referred to in Article 13 (2).'

HOCHE AND DE BESTE BOTER v BALM

6 In order to ensure that the undertaking with regard to processing is carried out, the successful tenderer must furnish a security, the amount of which is fixed in such a way as to cover the difference between the market price of butter and the minimum selling price (Articles 9 (2) and 12 of Regulation No 1259/72).

JUDGMENT OF 2. 5. 1985 — JOINED CASES 154 AND 155/83

(b) Does the successful tenderer's duty to furnish proof pursuant to the first sentence of Article 18 (2) of Regulation No 1259/72 as amended by Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1237/73 of the Commission of 10 May 1973 (Official Journal 1973, L 128, p. 1) also extend to processing which takes place after the manufacture of the powder for the preparation of edible ices in accordance with Article 6 (1) (c) (third option) of Regulation No 1259/72 as amended by Article 1 (2) of Regulation No 2161/72?

(c) Does Article 6 (a) (which was inserted by Regulation (EEC) No 1910/73 of the Commission of 13 July 1973 (Official Journal 1973, L 196, p. 10) apply, as is suggested by the preamble, only to products falling within heading No 19.08 of the Common Customs Tariff or does it include ice-cream products falling within tariff subheadings Nos ex 18.06 D or ex 21.07 F of the Common Customs Tariff?

(d) Does the 'powder for the preparation of edible ices falling within subheadings Nos ex 18.06 D or ex 21.07 F of the Common Customs Tariff' in Article 6 (1) (c) as amended by Regulation No 2161/72 represent the sole product of that category into which the butter may be processed or, within the framework of the further processing permitted by Article 6 (a), may all the products falling within subheadings Nos ex 18.06 D and ex 21.07 F be manufactured without the security being forfeited?

(e) Does the fact that Article 18 (2) as amended by Regulation No 1237/73 makes no reference to Article 6 (a) mean that an infringement of Article 6 (a) does not affect the release of the security or must the release of the security be refused if it is established that there has been an infringement of the said article?

Questions (c) and (d)

11 The national court takes the view that if Article 6 (a) applies to all the products enumerated in Article 6 (1) (c) and not only to fine bakers' wares falling within heading 19.08 of the Common Customs Tariff, further processing of the powder for the preparation of edible ices into products other than ice-cream must give rise to the forfeiture of the security. That line of reasoning cannot be accepted in so far as the range of products referred to in Article 6 (a) does not in itself pre­ determine the extent of the duties imposed on the processing undertaking in its dealings with the purchasers of the processed product. The extent of those duties is defined in the answer to the second set of questions, Questions (a), (b) and (e).

12 The plaintiffs and the party joined in the main proceedings argue that the preamble to Regulation No 1910/73 of 13 July 1973, which inserted Article 6 (a), refers only to products falling within heading 19.08 of the Common Customs Tariff (fine bakers' wares), and that consequently Article 6 (a) does not apply to the powder for the preparation of edible ices referred to in Article 6 (1) (c) of Regulation No 1259/72.

13 The Court is unable to accept that view. As the Bundesanstalt für landwirt­ schaftliche Marktordnung and the Commission rightly argued, the decisive factor in the interpretation of Article 6 (a) on that point is not the preamble to the regu­ lation which introduced it, which merely sets out the general aims of the regu­ lation, but the wording of the article itself, which makes it clear that Article 6 (a)

17 For this reason it must be stated in answer to Question (d) that Article 6 (a), which was inserted into Regulation No 1259/72 of the Commission of 16 June 1972 on the disposal of butter at a reduced price to certain Community processing under­ takings by Regulation No 1910/73 of the Commission of 13 July 1973, permits further processing of the products referred to in Article 6 (1) (c) of Regulation No 1259/72 only if the resulting products are also products referred to in that article.

HOCHE AND DE BESTE BOTER v BALM

Questions (a), (b) and (e)

18 The second group of questions asks in substance whether the national intervention agency is required to release the security if, before it does so, it is found that although the butter was processed into powder for the preparation of edible ices within the meaning of Article 6 (1) (c) (third option) of Regulation No 1259/72 as amended by Regulation No 2161/72, the powder, instead of being used for the preparation of edible ices, was separated into products falling within headings of the Common Customs Tariff other than those specified in the regulations.

19 In that regard it must be borne in mind that under the terms of Article 6 (a), further processing of the products referred to in Article 6 (1) (c) is allowed only where such products fall within one of the headings referred to in that Article. Within the scheme of the regulations as a whole, Article 6 (a) is a supplement to Article 6. That is confirmed by the fact that Regulation No 232/75 of the Commission of 30 January 1975 on the sale of butter at reduced prices for use in the manufacture of pastry products and ice cream (Official Journal 1975, L 24, p. 45) includes a provision corresponding to Article 6 (a) as a distinct paragraph within Article 6 itself.

Questions (g) and (f)

25 The third group of questions concerns whether the addition of the binding agent sodium caseinate to the powder for the preparation of edible ices referred to in Article 6 (1) (c) (third option) affects the release of the security.

26 All the parties to the main proceedings agree that the application of Article 6 (1) (c) does not depend on the possibility of selling the processed product in the various Member States and that it is sufficient if its use is permitted in at least one Member State.

27 As the Court stated in its judgment of 14 January 1982 (Case 64/81 Corman v Hauptzollamt Gronau [1982] ECR 13), the requirements regarding the charac­ teristics which the processed products must have 'are based on the provisions of the Common Customs Tariff read in conjunction with Regulation No 1259/72, that is to say, on provisions of Community law which do not refer to legal systems of the Member States in determining their meaning and scope.' In consequence legislation of a Member State regulating the quality of foodstuffs cannot affect the

HOCHE AND DE BESTE BOTER v BALM

release of the security where the processed products for which the security was furnished satisfy the requirements contained in Article 6 (1) (c) of Regulation No 1259/72.

in answer to the questions referred to it by the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof by orders of 30 May 1983, hereby rules:

(1) Article 6 (a), which was inserted into Regulation (EEC) No 1259/72 of the Commission of 16 June 1972 on the disposal of butter at a reduced price to certain Community processing undertakings by Regulation (EEC) No 1910/73 of the Commission of 13 July 1973, applies to powder for the preparation of edible ices within the meaning of Article 6 (1) (c) (third option) of Regulation No 1259/72.

JUDGMENT OF 2. 5. 1985 — JOINED CASES 154 AND 155/83

(2) Article 6 (a), which was inserted into Regulation (EEC) No 1259/72 of the Commission of 16 June 1972 on the disposal of butter at a reduced price to certain Community processing undertakings by Regulation (EEC) No 1910/73 of the Commission of 13 July 1973, permits further processing of the products referred to in Article 6 (1) (c) of Regulation No 1259/72 only if the resulting products are also products referred to in that article.

(3) Where the security has not yet been released the national intervention agency must declare it forfeit if it is found that although powder for the preparation of edible ices was produced from the butter as provided by Article 6 (1) (c) (third option) of Regulation (EEC) No 1259/72 of the Commission of 16 June 1972 on the disposal of butter at a reduced price to certain Community processing undertakings as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2161/72 of the Commission of 10 October 1972, the powder was not used for the preparation of edible ices but was separated into products falling within headings of the Common Customs Tariff other than those mentioned in the relevant provisions.