5.The College van Beroep considered that the case raised questions of interpretation of Community law and, by order of 7 December 1976, stayed the proceedings and, pursuant to Article 177 of the EEC Treaty, requested the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the following questions:I —— Must the objective of the regulation be regarded as being:(a) to achieve a considerable reduction of existing stocks of skimmed-milk powder as appears from the last sentence of Article 11 of the regulation or else:(b) to increase the utilization of the protein contained in skimmed-milk powder for the feeding of animals other than calves?— If the objective must be regarded as that set out in (a) above, can it then be said that the regulation states the reasons on which it is based as required by Article 190 of the Treaty?— it the last question is answered in the negative does that then have the consequence that the regulation is not binding as being in conflict with Article 190?II —— Are the rules contained in the regulation, whereby the issue of a protein certificate required for the free circulation in the Community of the products referred to in Article 3 of the regulation is conditional after 1 April 1976 either on the submission of proof of the purchase and the denaturation of skimmed-milk powder or provision of a security and, before 1 April 1976 but after 19 March 1976, the provision of a security incompatible with the objectives of the common agricultural policy as defined in Article 39 of the Treaty?— If so, is the regulation therefore not binding?III —— Are the rules in conflict with the system and the principles of Article 3 (f) and Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty?— If so, is the regulation therefore not binding?IV —— Are the rules in conflict with the principle that there should be no discrimination as laid down inter alia in Article 40 (3) of the Treaty?— If so, is the regulation therefore not binding?V —— If revenue accrues to the Community pursuant to the application of the regulation and if the revenue is not to be regarded as ‘own resources’ within the meaning of Article 1 of the Decision of the Council of 21 April 1970 (OJ English Special Edition 1970 (I), p. 224) is the regulation not binding as being in conflict with that decision?VI —— Is the Council empowered by the Treaty to prescribe, as it does in Article 5 of the regulation, that the purchaser shall bear the costs which arise for the vendor from the implementation in accordance with a Community regulation of a contract which was concluded before the entry into force of the regulation?— If the question is answered in the negative is the regulation consequently not binding?VII —— Is the third subparagraph of Article 11 of the regulation to be interpreted as meaning that the Member States were already authorized before 1 April 1976 to make the provision of a security a condition for the issue of a protein certificate although it is provided in the second subparagraph of Article 11 that the regulation only applies from 1 April 1976?— If the question is answered in the affirmative is the rule contained in the third subparagraph of Article 11 binding in view of the fact that Article 3 (2) of the regulation, which requires a security for the issue of a protein certificate, became applicable only with effect from 1 April 1976 and that the detailed rules for the application of Article 3 (2) referred to in Article 9 of the regulation, which are contained in Regulation (EEC) No 677/76 of the Commission, entered into force only with effect from 1 April 1976?
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.