COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
COM(93) 161 final 
Brussels, 21 April 1993 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) 
providing for an offer of compensation to certain producers 
of milk or milk products temporarily prevented from 
carrying on their trade 
(presented by the Commission) 
- 2 -
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 
I. INTRODUCTION 
When the additional levy scheme in the milk and milk products sector 
was introduced in 1984 the Community legislation did not provide for 
the allocation of a reference quantity to producers who had not 
delivered or sold milk during the reference year adopted by the Member 
State as a result of a prior undertaking not to market milk or milk 
products or to convert dairy herds. The reference year was 1983 in all 
cases. 
The Court of Justice, in its Mulder and Von Deetzen judgments of 
28 April 1988 (Cases C-120 and C-170/86), declared the legislation 
invalid because it infringed the principle of the protection of the 
legitimate expectations of the producers concerned in not providing for 
the allocation of reference quantities to them. 
As a result of the judgments the Council amended Regulation (EEC) 
No 857/84 adopting general rules for the application of the additional 
levy in the milk and milk products sector(*) by adopting Regulation 
(EEC) No 764/89(2), which added an "Article 3a" to the former 
Regulation. That Article in turn was declared partly invalid by the 
Court in its Spagl and Pastâtter judgments of 11 December 1990 (Cases 
C-189 and C-217/89) as being too restrictive with regard to the 
producers concerned. To remedy that situation, the Council adopted 
Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91(3) which amended Article 3a of Regulation 
(EEC) No 857/84. In other words, after some delay, two series of 
allocations of "special" reference quantities were made to the "SLOM" 
producers. 
In March 1989 and February 1990 respectively five of these SLOM 
producers again applied to the Court under Article 215 of the EEC 
Treaty to rule that the Community should make good the damage they had 
suffered as a result of the exclusion they had undergone under the 
terms of the original Community legislation. In its judgment of 19 May 
1992 in Joined Cases C-104/89 and C-37/90, Mulder et al and Heinemann, 
the Court ordered the Commission and the Council to make good the 
damage suffered by the five applicants insofar as the original 
Community legislation did not provide for the allocation of a reference 
quantity to producers who, pursuant to an undertaking given not to 
deliver milk or to convert dairy herds, did not deliver any milk during 
the reference year adopted by the Member State concerned. 
It should be borne in mind that about 120 000 producers participated in 
the SLOM scheme introduced by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77(4) 
and that about 12 000 of them reverted to milk production after the 
above Council Regulations, (EEC) Nos 764/89 and 1639/91, were adopted. 
These twelve thousand are thus potential beneficiaries of the judgment 
made on 19 May 1992 on the award of damages. 
(1) OJ No L 90, 1.4.1984, p. 13. 
(2) OJ No L 84, 20.3.1989, p. 2. 
(3) OJ No L 150, 15.6.1991, p. 35. 
(4) OJ No L 131, 26.5.1977, p. 1. 
- 3 -
Of the twelve thousand producers, about three hundred have already 
applied to the Court for damages. The Court has suspended proceedings, 
firstly pending its own decision in principle on the first applications 
and secondly, since its decision in principle was a condemnation of the 
institutions, pending an overall solution to the problem. 
As well as the three hundred producers, about three thousand have to 
date submitted applications to either the Council or the Commission. 
After the Court's judgment and given the number of applications 
pending, the institutions could not remain silent. They declared their 
position in a Communication published in Official Journal No C 198 of 
5 August 1992 (5) in which they undertook to give full effect to the 
judgment of 19 May 1992 and granted a suspension for the future and 
erga omnes of the time bar on entitlement to claim damages pending an 
overall solution. The solution is contained in the present draft 
Council Regulation. 
3. The text comprises two sections: 
A legal section, which as regards content and form regulates the 
terms for awarding damages. Point II below is a detailed 
explanation of its contents. 
A financial section which, albeit very brief in the text, is the 
result of much research into devising a calculation method then 
setting the figures which appear in the Annex to the Regulation. 
Point III below sets out the details. Given the some 12 000 
potentially eligible producers, the proposed solution has had to be 
based on an overall approach. While account is not therefore taken 
of the situation of every injured producer, the calculation factors 
adopted are designed to work in favour of the clear majority of 
those concerned. 
II. LEGAL ASPECTS 
1. The principle 
The solution adopted is to make an offer via the Member States to all 
the producers concerned which is to be accepted in full and final 
settlement. If the producer refuses to settle, he will have no 
alternative but to prove before the Court of Justice that his loss is 
greater than the offer, with all the attendant costs, risks and 
increased delay in payment. Given that the compensation has been 
generously calculated, it is hoped that the majority of the cases will 
be settled in this way. 
2. An examination, article by article 
The definition of producers concerned given in Article 1 is taken in 
very precise wording from the Court of Justice's judgment. The fact of 
not having received a reference quantity is the consequence of not 
having been able to deliver or sell milk or milk products during the 
reference year. The text thus refers, as did the Court, to the event 
causing the damage. 
(5) OJ No C 198, 5.8.1992, p. 
- 4 -
Article 2 establishes a direct link between actual resumption of milk 
production and the existence of an injury which consisted in the fact 
of not having been able to resume milk production in good time. The 
term "definitive" qualifying the reference quantity allocated refers to 
the "provisional" nature of the initial allocation of the quantity 
which does not become definitive until after a trial production period 
to which a number of obligations attach. Non-compliance with them may 
mean loss of the quantity or a reduction of the definitive quantity. 
This will have consequences for the calculation of the quantity used as 
a basis for calculating the compensation. 
Although the first series of SLOM producers received a definitive 
allocation of quantities on 29 March 1991, this is not true of the 
second series, whose right remains provisional until 1 July 1993. It 
is therefore necessary to make different provisions taking into account 
this time lag. 
Article 3 may appear superfluous in that it merely states the principle 
existing in each of the national legal systems regarding the voluntary 
transfer of claims or the transfer of claims as the result, say, of a 
death. The Article's inclusion is justified by the need to make it 
clear to national administrations that an applicant for compensation 
may be someone other than the producer and to specify how to deal with 
such a situation. 
The producers may not participate in a programme of cessation of milk 
production nor sell or lease their holding in its entirety, even after 
the definitive allocation of quantities, on pain of the withdrawal of 
their quantities, which thus revert to the national reserve. As 
always, the aim of these rules is to exclude from the applicants those 
who merely wish to speculate based on the allocation of quotas. Such 
conduct also precludes the existence of an injury to be compensated. 
This is what is stated in Articles 4 and 5. These requirements expire 
on 31 March 1992 in respect of the producers benefiting from the first 
Regulation, No 764/89, in other words, the date has already passed, and 
on 1 July 1994 for those benefiting from the second Regulation, 
No 1639/91. The fact that that date has yet to expire is the reason 
why an application, under these conditions, will be admissible only on 
condition that the prescribed obligations be respected within that time 
limit. 
Article 6 defines the quantity on the basis of which the amount of the 
compensation can be fixed. Some of the different elements of that 
quantity were imposed by the Court judgment. 
The terminus a quo is the quantity used to calculate the premium 
granted under Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77. This is the last production 
reference available. That quantity is increased by 1%. The original 
quota rules gave Member States the choice of 1981, 1982 or 1983 as the 
national reference year. If 1981 was chosen the quantity was increased 
by 1%. The Court therefore feels that, in application of the principle 
of equal treatment, the SLOM producers should benefit from the 1%. 
- 5 -
In addition, when the milk quotas were first implemented the Member 
States had the obligation under certain conditions and the right under 
others to reduce the reference quantities by a percentage to be 
determined. The obligation referred to the necessity, if the Member 
State chose 1983 as the reference year, for example, that the total of 
the reference quantities should not exceed the overall national 
guaranteed quantity set in the legislation on the basis of 1981 + 1%. 
Since productivity increased everywhere between 1981 and 1983 there 
could only be equality between the quantity based on 1981 + 1% and the 
sum of the quantities allocated on the basis of individual 
deliveries/sales in 1983 if the quantities were reduced by a percentage 
which one could define as an abatement owing to an increase in 
productivity. The Court has ruled that that abatement cannot be applied 
to the SLOM producers. On the other hand, in order to establish a 
national reserve, Member States could apply other abatements differing 
according to category of producer or size of holding. The Court ruled 
that such abatements must be applied to SLOM producers' special 
quantities. 
It should be noted that the Court judgment which is being implemented 
here in respect of damages is more generous than the previous Court 
decisions on the amount of the quantities to be allocated for 
production. 
Article 7 lists the various cases in which the quantity to be 
compensated is likely to be reduced. The figure of 80% refers to a 
provision of Article 3a of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 under the terms 
of which, once production of 80% of the quantity provisionally 
allocated is exceeded, the producer definitively receives the entire 
quantity allocated provisionally. On the other hand, if production is 
lower than 80% he receives only the quantity actually produced. It 
seems normal to measure the reparable damage taking into account the 
above factors. 
Article 8 defines the period during which the damage was suffered. 
Normally, it can be postulated that the damage commenced at the end of 
the obligation not to deliver milk or to convert dairy herds and ended 
either on the date of entry into force of Regulation (EEC) No 764/89 or 
on the date of entry into force of Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91. 
However, the above is valid without prejudice to the rules governing 
application of the period during which the applicant must act to avoid 
being time barred in his claim. Article 43 of the Statute of the Court 
of Justice provides for a time limit of five years within which to 
institute proceedings from the occurrence of the event giving rise 
thereto. It can be accepted that if such an event recurs day after day, 
as is the case here, the event does not cease until the activity 
concerned is resumed. 
In accordance with the terms of the Communication of the Council and 
the Commission published on 5 August 1992 in the Official Journal, it 
has been acknowledged that the five-year time limit was interrupted for 
the future on the date of any application addressed to the institutions 
or on 5 August 1992 at the latest. The aim of this was to stem the 
flow of applications which had by then reached about 2 000 and to 
provide reassurance to the producers. As a result, the time limit is 
currently interrupted and will not recommence until the expiry of the 
time limit for submission of applications for damages as stipulated in 
the present proposal and for producers who have not made an approach 
prior to the expiry of the time limit. 
- 6 
Article 9 provides for the case where production was resumed prior to 
the allocation of a special provisional reference quantity. The period 
in question here is that in which the damage is claimed to have been 
suffered. If, however, production did in fact take place the damage is 
reduced accordingly or completely annulled. 
Articles 10 and Article 11 set out the procedure to be followed by the 
Member States. Articles 12 and 13 lay down the provisions relating to 
calculation of the total amount of compensation. These are set out in 
detail in Section III of this Explanatory Memorandum. 
Article 14 represents the conclusion of the entire procedure described 
above. A figure will be proposed to the producer on behalf of the 
Commission. The former will then have two months to accept it. 
Acceptance involves signature of a receipt in full and complete 
settlement and relinquishment in the future of any claim whatever in 
respect of the damage. Non-acceptance of the offer within the time 
limit, either explicitly or tacitly by silence on the part of the 
producer, will then involve the producer in putting his claim for 
actual damages before the Court, it being specified that the 
institutions will not in the future be bound by the offer which was 
made and refused in any future legal proceedings. 
Article 15 comprises two sections dealing with the allocation of powers 
to the Commission. Firstly, the Commission must be able to adopt 
detailed rules for applying the Regulation adopted by the Council; this 
is the traditional formula. The reference to the fees of appointed 
agents is made for two reasons: the Community has every interest in 
lawyers' not dragging producers into actions before the Court of 
Justice, which is unnecessary since the institutions' communication in 
the Official Journal of 5 August 1992. In addition, the same lawyer 
may represent several hundred producers so the reimbursement should be 
made a flat-rate sum. The interested parties are therefore duly 
apprised, each in regard to his own case, about the way in which this 
question will be settled. 
The second part of Article 15 is a clause relating to force majeure 
which would apply to highly marginal cases not settled by the present 
Regulation. The Commission feels that it must be able to deal with 
dossiers worthy of interest but falling outside the strict framework 
established by the Council, for reasons both of equity and of 
simplicity. 
Article 16 states that the payment of compensation is an intervention 
measure, as is clear from the legal basis chosen, i.e. Article 43 of 
the EC Treaty. For budgetary reasons, all the expenditure should be 
committed during the 1993 budget year even if, because of a carrying-
forward of appropriations, the payment itself does not occur until the 
1994 budget year. 
- 7 -
III. FINANCIAL ASPECTS 
1. Calculation of the compensation offer should be based on paragraph 26 
of the judgment of 19 May 1992. This stipulates that the difference 
between the following two figures is to be calculated: 
- one: the income which the non-marketer would have obtained from 
milk deliveries had he not been unlawfully excluded from milk 
production for a specific period; 
two: the income which the non-marketer actually obtained during the 
period of his exclusion or - if higher - the income which he could 
have obtained given equivalent efforts. 
Determining these figures is a very difficult process. Even income 
from milk deliveries cannot be determined directly from the milk price 
paid out by the relevant dairy to its associated producers. Production 
costs vary from one holding to the next; for instance, they vary 
according to the size of the holding, the production method and the 
skill of the farmer. Using these criteria alone, incomes fluctuating 
between ECU 6 and 14 per 100 kg milk are found for the year 1988/89 
within relatively small regions. 
Secondly, the milk prices actually paid out are anything but uniform. 
Their main determinant is the production capacity of the dairy; the 
market support measures for butter and skimmed-milk powder implemented 
by the Community have only a limited bearing on the price paid to the 
milk producer. This price may vary by up to 10% even between 
neighbouring dairies. 
The situation of individual non-marketers varies not merely in terms of 
their hypothetically obtainable income, but also in terms of 
opportunities to obtain income from other sources. In this case the 
main factor is the holding's structure and position, which are the 
decisive factors in its opportunities for making alternative use of 
available agricultural resources. In some cases pasture was turned 
into arable land, in others the alternative use was restricted to 
keeping suckler cows, sheep or fattening bulls. Geographical location 
is also important for the availability of other sources of income, in 
particular the existence of industrial job opportunities in the 
vicinity. The possibility of direct marketing of special crops in 
nearby centres of consumption should also be considered. Ultimately, a 
non-marketer's opportunities of obtaining non-agricultural income will 
be greatly affected by his personal circumstances, particularly his 
professional qualifications or the existence of retraining facilities. 
All in all, the factors to be taken into account in determining income 
from potential milk deliveries and from other sources of income are 
extremely varied. Calculating them in each individual case would 
require so much time, labour and expense that it would prejudice the 
interests of the farmer in obtaining compensation as quickly as 
possible. 
Because of these problems and the number of people eligible for 
compensation as a result of the 19 May ruling (about 12 000) only a 
broad approach will be possible under the present compensation 
arrangements, i.e. flat-rate calculations. That will of necessity mean 
that not all the particular features of each individual case can be 
taken into account. To avoid wherever possible any disadvantages which 
might result from that approach, solutions which were in the interests 
of the parties concerned were selected in the calculation of the 
various factors. 
4. The planned compensation amounts are based on the following 
cons iderat ions: 
(a) Paragraph 28 of the 19 May judgment states that the compensation 
calculation must be based on the reference quantity to which the 
non-marketer was entitled. Thus, the compensation is not based on 
the number and yield of the cows present at the time the 
undertaking not to market was entered into, but merely on the 
quantity of milk which, according to Community rules, the producer 
excluded from production could have marketed during the 
compensation period. Consequently all calculations are based on 
compensation per 100 kg non-marketed milk. 
(b) The basis for calculating the potential income from milk deliveries 
was the gross margin from dairy farming, a method which on the 
income side covers sales of milk, calves born to dairy cows and the 
residual value of the dairy cow, and on the expenditure side covers 
deduction of variable costs (**). Since variable costs cease to 
exist as soon as production is stopped, they were disregarded in 
the calculation of loss of income. In contrast, fixed costs for 
land, labour and capital were not deducted. In economic terms, 
therefore, the gross margin on which the calculation was based 
represents the margin which a milk producer needs to cover his 
fixed costs (land, labour, capital). 
The figures in Table 1 give the gross margins per 100 kg milk 
produced in budget ecus(7). 
(6) For details of the method see Commission Decision 85/377/EEC, 
OJ No L 220, 17.8.1985. 
(7) The conversion rates used for the years in question can be found in the 
annexed table. 
- 9 -
Table 1 : Gross margin in ECU (budget) per 100 kg of milk 
Member State 1990/91 1989/90 1988/89 1987/88 1986/87 1985/86 1984/85 
16.5 
16.1 
17.5 
17.9 
19.0 
17.0 
15.8 
14.3 Belgique/Belgiê 
Danmark 
Deutschiand 
France 
Ireland 
Luxembourg 
Nederiand 
United Kingdom 23.7 
23.1 
21.7 
21.4 
23.7 
28.7 
21.5 
18.9 24.8 
23.8 
23.1 
20.8 
26.5 
27.3 
23.7 
19.3 22.2 
21.2 
22.1 
20.2 
23.9 
23.6 
22.8 
18.7 18.9 
19.0 
19.6 
19.0 
20.9 
22.0 
21.2 
15.8 18.7 
18.6 
19.2 
20.0 
19.6 
20.5 
19.0 
14.6 18.1 
18.0 
18.8 
19.6 
20.9 
17.8 
16.5 
16.7 
Source: FADN 
The data In Table 1 are based on the Farm Accountancy Data Network 
(FADN)1. The gross margins were calculated using data transmitted 
by the Member States under the FADN system in accordance with the 
above method. 
However, it should be noted that it was not possible to derive the 
gross margins directly from the accounting data. Special 
calculations still had to be made concerning allocation of variable 
costs to dairy farming and estimation of the value of calves and 
cull cows. On the other hand, use of FADN results ensured that a 
uniform database could be used for all Member States. 
(c) To test the reliability of the gross margins per 100 kg milk shown 
in Table 1 a credibility test was carried out using the standard 
gross margins (SGMs) for dairy cows published in Official Journal 
C 268/91 (J/07). The figures in Table 1 were converted to a gross 
margin per cow and compared with the SGMs in the above publication. 
The gross margins given in Table 1 for France and Ireland were a few 
percent higher than the maximum SGMs for those countries. In the 
cases of the Netherlands and Luxembourg, for which only national 
average SGMs were given, the gross margins lay above the averages. 
The maxima for Denmark and the United Kingdom were also almost 
reached, which indicates that the gross margins in Table 1 are on 
the whole realistic and if anything somewhat generous in the final 
analysis. Only in the case of Germany are the maximum SGMs above 
the figures obtained from the FADN data. However, these are only 
regional peaks which are in no way representative of the average 
yield In Germany. The gross margins obtained from the FADN data are 
almost double the minimum SGM for Germany. 
See FADN Handbook. 
1990. Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 
bi< 
(d) There are two reasons for not basing the calculation of 
compensation directly on the above standard gross margins: firstly, 
the figures in OJ No C 268/91 are based on the average for the 
years 1985-87, while 1988/89 must in the first instance be used for 
the compensation arrangements because of the time bar question; and 
secondly, the figures in the above publication relate to gross 
margins per cow. Because of the very varied milk yields per cow 
throughout the Community it is not possible to convert the gross 
margins per 100 kg milk on the basis of the data published in 
OJ No C 268/91. In the light of the above it seems appropriate not 
simply to use the often very different gross margins as the 
calculation basis but merely to use them for comparison purposes 
with the figures obtained from the FADN. 
(e) According to the calculation method given in paragraph 26 of the 
19 May ruling, income from replacement activities must be deducted 
from potential income, in other words, according to the method used 
here, from the gross margins shown in Table 1. In the Court's 
view, the question of whether a non-marketer actually obtained 
alternative income during the compensation period and if so, how 
much, is not the decisive factor in itself. Paragraph 33 of the 
ruling stipulates that the decisive factor should be the income 
that a non-marketer could have obtained if he had made reasonable 
efforts to find an alternative source of income. It is clear that 
this reasoning prevents the calculation from being based merely on 
the actual alternative income obtained by the non-marketer during 
the compensation period. 
(8) See FADN Handbook. Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 
1990. 
- 10 -
(f) In contrast to what has been claimed by many non-marketers, the 
compensation sum ultimately to be paid to them cannot merely be 
calculated by simply comparing the gross margins from milk 
deliveries with those obtained from fattening bulls, keeping sheep 
or cereal farming. Such an approach is clearly wrong because 
giving up milk production liberates the production factors (land, 
labour and capital) in such a combination that they could not be 
fully exploited if only a single alternative form of production 
were employed (e.g. fattening bulls). A non-marketer desirous of 
limiting the extent of the damage would therefore have had to seek 
combinations which enabled him, as far as possible, to use the 
three production factors (land, labour and capital) released to the 
full. In view of the variety of alternative sources of 
agricultural and non-agricultural income it is only possible to 
arrive at a calculation method valid for all non-marketers by 
disregarding specific forms of alternative production and assigning 
a financial value to the production factors liberated. 
(g) The reasoning developed at (f) above also holds for producers who 
had accepted the conversion premium. Unlike producers who had 
taken the non-marketing premium, the undertaking for those with the 
conversion premium was only of four years duration and in most 
cases expired in 1983/84, i.e. at a time when those concerned knew 
that they were not eligible for the allocation of an individual 
reference quantity. At the end of their four-year undertaking, the 
producers who had opted for the conversion premium found themselves 
also free to choose an alternative activity in which they could 
fully exploit the production factors (land, labour and capital). 
The calculation rules pertaining to the non-marketing premium can 
thus also be applied to those producers who had taken the 
conversion premium. 
(h) As has already been pointed out, land, labour and capital are the 
main production factors in agriculture. The profitability of their 
use is largely dependent on the size of the holding. The 
assumption can be made for the standard production method 
considered here (stall housing) that efficiency increases with 
increased production. On holdings with milk production in excess 
of 120 000 kg the Community average labour requirement is about 60 
hours per annum; in contrast, holdings producing less than 50 000 
kg milk per annum require about 80 hours per cow (for Germany see, 
for example, the KTBL Taschenbuch Landwirtschaft, Daten fur die 
Betriebskalkulation, 14th edition, 1988, pp. 200-201). As a result, 
relatively large holdings ceasing milk production liberate fewer 
working hours per 100 kg milk than smaller holdings. It is 
therefore essential to make a distinction according to the non-
marketers' reference quantities in the compensation arrangements; 
in addition, this is the only criterion which meets the requirement 
of paragraph 32 of the 19 May 1992 ruling, which involves using the 
profitability of a "representative farm" for the non-marketer in 
question as a basis for the calculation. 
11 
(i) In the case of the production factor, labour, the criterion 
proposed is the average gross hourly wages for agricultural workers 
in the Member States (Table 2). These data were calculated by 
Eurostat on the basis of a Community survey for 1984, 1986 and 1988 
(Eurostat, Earnings in Agriculture, 1986 and 1988). The hourly 
wages given in national currencies have been converted into budget 
ecus using the annual average of the daily currency rates for the 
years in question (for conversion rates see the Commission Report 
on the Agricultural Situation in the Community, 1989, Table 1). 
The hourly wage rates for 1985, 1987 and 1989 were estimated. 
- 12 -
Table 2 : Wage costs In ECU txidgel} per lOO kg of mlk 
I 
Member State Betglqua/Belgié 
Danmark 
Deutschland*1 
France 
Ireland 
Luxembourg *2 
Nederland 
United Kingdom 
Member State 
Belglque/Betgie 
Oanmark 
Deutschland*1 
France 
Ireland 
Luxembourg *2 
Nederland 
United Kingdom 1990/81 
<50000kg <120000kg >120000kg 
85 
132 
10.4 
75 
75 
85 
85 
8.1 7.8 
11J8 
8.1 
es 
6.6 
7.4 
7.7 
7.1 6.8 
85 
75 
55 
5.7 
65 
6.6 
6.1 
1886/87 
<50000kg <120000kg > 120000 kg 
OJO 
85 
82 
85 
7.7 
8J8 
82 
82 7.8 
8.4 
8.1 
7.4 
6.8 
75 
72 
5.4 65 
72 
6.8 
8.4 
55 
6.4 
8.1 
4.7 <5000Qkg 
82 
12X1 
132 
8.1 
75 
8.7 
85 
7.7 1869/80 
:120000kg >120000kg 
8.0 
105 
8.0 
7X1 
6.6 
7J6 
7.4 
6.7 6.8 
9.0 
7.7 
6.0 
5.6 
65 
6.4 
5.7 
1865/86 
<50000kg <120000kg >120000kgl <50000kq 
8.7 
8.8 
8.0 
8.1 
72 
85 
82 
6.4 75 
75 
78 
7.1 
6.3 
75 
72 
55 6.5 
8.7 
65 
6.1 
5.4 
OS 
8.1 
43 1988/89 
<50000kg <120000kg >12O00Qkg 
82 8.1 65 
112 85 8.4 
85 «.7 7.4 
8.0 7X1 6.0 
75 65 5.7 
8.7 75 65 
8.4 75 65 
72 65 5.4 
8.1 
82 
85 
7.7 
75 
8.7 
8.1 
6.4 1984/85 
<120000 kg >120000 kg 
8.0 
72 
7.7 
65 
8.1 
75 
7.1 
5.6 1987/88 
<50000kg < 120000 kg > 120000 kg 
82 
105 
105 
6.0 
7.8 
85 
85 
65 8.1 
82 
8.8 
75 
6.7 
75 
75 
5.8 6.9 
7.9 
75 
6.0 
5.7 
6.4 
62 
5.1 
Labour/cow in h/year. < 50000 kg-
Labour/cow In h/year. < 120000 kg -
Labour/cow Inn/year: > 120000 kg-80 
70 
60 
•1: StatistJsches Jahrbuch ûberEmahrung. LaivMrtschaftijndForsten 1991. Tab. 363. 
•2: Belgium wages rates have been used lor calculating the wage costs In ECU/100 kg milk. 
Way of calculation: Labour/cow In h/year • Wage per h / MSk Production per cow 
Sources: 
FADN; 
Wages: Earnings In agriculture 1888, Eurostat, Series 3C, p5; 
Labour requirement per cow: KTBL-Taschenbuch Landwirtschaft, Oaten fur die Betriebskalkulation 1888, p200. 
(J) For the production factor land the rent customary in the country in 
question was used. Since agricultural land is generally leased for 
periods of several years the average rents for the years 1987/88 and 
1988/89 were used for each Member State (cf. Table 3). 
Table 3 : Rent costs in ECU (budget) per 100 kg of milk 
I" Milk/ha Rent costs 
Member State Rent/ha LU/ha in 100 kg per 100 kg 
Belgique/Belgiê 91 2.5 111 0.8 
Danmark 205 2.9 171 1.2 
Deutschiand 179 1.9 94 1.9 
France 78 1.4 68 1.1 
Ireland 112 1.4 58 1.9 
Luxembourg 120 1.7 82 1.5 
Nederiand 275 2.6 165 1.7 
I United Kingdom | JO 1^ 102 0.7 
Way of calculation: 1.) Milk/ha = LU/ha * Milk production percow; 
2.) Rent costs = rent per ha/milk per ha. 
Source: FADN 
For non-marketers, only the particularly low rents for absolute 
pasture (I.e. not useable for arable farming) were used; this is 
pasture for which there is no milk quota. This criterion is a 
considerable benefit to non-marketers with ploughable pasture land 
- 12 _ Wi 
(k) For non-marketers, no allowance was made for alternative income 
from the capital liberated on cessation of production. This is 
because non-marketers had to indicate their willingness to resume 
milk production and therefore the possibility of alternative use of 
the capital was greatly reduced, although not entirely ruled out. 
(1) Breaking down holding size according to milk production largely 
conforms to the non-marketing premium system. Only the alternative 
income for the smallest producers (< 30 000 kg milk) was omitted, 
since these holdings, with 5-6 cows, are not typical of northern 
European countries. Because of the relatively low productivity of 
labour on such small holdings a relatively large amount of labour 
is liberated on cessation of milk production;* as a result, income 
from replacement activities per 100 kg milk is very high. 
Compensating these small producers by placing them in the category 
proposed here (< 50 000 kg) would work to their advantage. 
It should also be noted that a production method typical of small 
and medium-sized holdings (stall housing) was used as the basis for 
calculating the labour requirement in hours per cow. Large 
holdings with a milk production of over 250 000 or 300 000 kg can 
manage with a relatively low labour requirement of about 35 hours 
per cow per annum because they can use different production methods 
(e.g. loose pen barns). Such holdings are also more easily able to 
find alternative uses for the factors liberated. As a result, the 
wage and rent figures used to calculate the alternative income for 
large holdings in particular will be clearly lower than actual 
income. In the end, this will compensate for the on average 
somewhat high estimate of the labour requirement per cow. 
- 13 -
(m) The above rent and wage figures had to be included in the 
calculation of alternative income irrespective of whether a non-
marketer actually rented out the liberated land or entered into an 
employment contract. The reason for this is the indisputable fact 
that production factors were liberated upon cessation of milk 
production, and they have an economic value which must be credited 
to the non-marketer in each case. If he does not make use of these 
values he will in all probability not have made the increased 
efforts he should have made to limit the extent of the damage to 
him. 
(n) The fact that only average wages and rents are used in the proposed 
calculation will work to the advantage of most of the non-
marketers, for wages and rents are only paid if the employer/lessee 
sees the prospect of an income exceeding the sums in question. 
That there is a market for rented land and agricultural workers 
confirms the existence of agricultural production methods which 
will produce an alternative income exceeding the rents or wages in 
question. 
(o) Table 4 shows income from replacement activities per 100 kg mi Ik in 
budget ecus. The figures are arrived at by adding together the wage 
and rent costs shown in Tables 2 and 3 respectively. As would be 
expected from the differences In labour productivity, the 
alternative income per 100 kg milk is lower for large holdings than 
for sma11 ones. 
Table 4 : Aï: 3%-nathre Income In ECU (budget) per 100 kg of milk according to farni size* 
Member State 
Belgique/Belglê 
Denmark 
Oeutschland 
France 
Ireland 
Luxembourg 
Nederland 
United Kingdom 
Member State 
Belgique/Belgiê 
Denmark 
Oeutschland 
France 
Ireland 
Luxembourg 
Nederland 
United Kingdom 1880/81 
<S0O0Okg <120000kg > 120000 kg 
85 8.7 75 
14.4 125 11.1 
125 115 8.7 
85 85 75 
85 85 75 
85 85 75 
105 8.4 85 
85 75 65 
1886/87 
<50000kg <120000kg > 120000 kg 
85 8.7 75 
105 85 6.4 
11.1 105 85 
85 85 75 
8.7 8.7 7.7 
105 85 75 
85 85 75 
65 6.1 5.4 1888/80 
<50000kg < 120000kg > 120000kg 
10.0 85 7.7 
132 11.7 102 
12.1 105 85 
82 82 72 
85 65 75 
102 8.1 85 
102 8.1 8.0 
85 7.4 8.4 
188986 
<50000kg <120000kg > 120000 kg 
85 8.4 75 
10.1 85 75 
105 85 8.7 
85 62 72 
82 65 7.4 
10.1 85 75 
85 65 75 
7.1 65 55 1888/88 
<50000kg <120000kg > 120000kg 
10.0 85 7.7 
12.4 115 85 
115 105 85 
82 82 72 
85 8.6 75 
102 8.1 85 
10.1 85 85 
75 75 6.1 
1884/85 
<50000kg <120000kg > 120030kg 
10.0 85 7.7 
8.4 8.4 7.4 
10.7 85 85 
85 75 85 
65 6.1 72 
10.1 8.1 85 
85 85 75 
7.1 65 55 1887/1886 
<50000kg <120000kg >120000kg 
105 85 7.7 
11.7 10.4 8.1 
115 10.7 8.4 
82 82 72 
85 8.8 7.7 
105 85 75 
105 85 75 
75 6.6 5.8 
Way of calculation: Alternative Income - Wage Costs + Rent Costs 
Source: s. Table 2 and 3. 
(p) Analysis of gross margins has indicated that differences within 
individual Member States are much greater than the averages 
calculated for each Member State. It was therefore felt appropriate 
to use an average weighted according to milk production for the 
compensation periods in question and the holding sizes used in (h) 
above for the Member States affected by the compensation scheme. 
Table y-Losses in green ECU per 100 kg of milk, EUR8* Average 
Year I Farm-Size 
<50000 kg <120000 kg >120000 kg 
1990/91 9.4 10.3 11.2 
1989/90 10.4 11.3 12.3 
1988/89 9.9 10.8 11.8 
1987/88 8.1 9 9.9 
1986/87 7.8 8.7 9.6 
1985/86 8.6 9.5 10.4 
1984/85 I 7^4 8.3 9^ 
=Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, UK. 
To conclude, Table 5 alone constitutes the Annex to the proposal 
for a Regulation and the figures therein must be used by the Member 
States in calculating each individual compensation sum. 
Average rates used for conversion of national currencies into ecus in the 
calculation of the FADN gross margins 
JfAB. ' 1984/85 ! _1985/86 j__1986/87 _l_ 1987/88 l_1988/89 1 1989/90 ! 1990/91_ I 199 l/9 2*_i-
GERMANY ~~=T=~=IS=~=r~~~T 7 7 ~"" 7 7 7 j 
1.7-30.6 I 2,23440 i 2,19092 I 2,08533 i 2,07179 l 2,07836 I 2,052507 I 2,056781 I 2,047056 j 
FRANCE 1 I I I I I I I ] 
1.1-31.121 6,87165 i 6,79502 ! 6,79976 I 6,92848 ! 7,03643 1 7,023869 I 6,914159 I 6,973335 ] 
ITALY 7 "~"7 7 7 7 7 7 7 " 
l.T-31.12! 1381,381 I 1447,987 ! 1461,874 I 1494,708 I 1537,333 I 1510,469 I 1521,941 I 1533,235 ] 
l?^-1^^ I 45,0821 I 44,7506 1 43,3588 I 43,1625 ! 43,538 ! 43,00838 1 42,35358 I 42,15573 \ 
DJXE^B5URG"7 " 7 7" 7 7 7 7"""" 7 ~~"7 
1.5-30.4 I 45,0821 I 44,7506 ! 43,3588 I 43,1625 I 43,538 I 43,00838 I 42,35358 I 42,15573 1 
NETHERLANDS! ! 7 7 " 7 I"" 7 7 7 
1.5-30.4 I 2,52085 I 2,48571 I 2,36628 I 2,33006 I 2,3434 I 2,31834 I 2,31710 I 2,306624 j 
DRftWARK I I ! ! ! i ! I ] 
1.7-30.6 I 8,05392 ! 8,CC261 ! 7,86013 ! 7,94047 I 8,03059 I 7,92298 I 7,882836 I 7,924647 ; 
TRPl AND I I ; l i l i ! ] 1.1-31.121 0,725942 ! C,~1516 " : 0,733526 ! 0,775443 l 0,775671 ! 0,776818 I 0,767769 ! 0,767808 • _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
1.3-28.2 ! 0,598295 ! CS^IS"1! : C,688453 ! 0,697229 ! 0,656018 ! 0,686898 I 0,710474 ! 0,702624 ; 
r,OFFQF I : " 7 7 "7" " 7 ~! I 
1.1-3*1.12 1 88,3403 : 1C5,~39: . 137,4246 I 156,2204 l 167,5756 I 178,8404 : 201,412 I 225,2157 ; 
'SPAÏV 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7~"7 T 
1.1-31.121 126,5693 : 125.1645 : 137,4563 l 142,1915 l 137,6007 I 130,4058 ! 129,3156 ! 128,4685 ; 
PORTUGAL ~"7 7 ~ '"7 7 7 7 7 " 
1.1-31.12 I 115,6801 ! 12:. 2515 : 147,0884 I 162,5811 ! 170,0592 i 173,4131 ! 181,1076 ! 178,6141 ; i 
SOURCE: CRONOS ICG: * finished on 19 August 1992, 
16 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) 
providing for an offer of compensation to certain producers 
of milk or milk products temporarily prevented from 
carrying on their trade 
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, 
and in particular Article 43 thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission^1), 
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament^) f 
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee(^), 
Whereas when the additional levy scheme was introduced in 1984 in the milk 
and milk products sector the Community legislation did not provide for the 
allocation of an individual reference quantity to producers who, as a result 
of a prior undertaking pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77 of 
17 May 1977 introducing a system of premiums for the non-marketing of milk 
and milk products and for the conversion of dairy herds(4), had not 
delivered or sold milk during the reference year adopted by the Member 
State; 
Whereas, on the application of five producers, the Court of Justice, in its 
judgment of 19 May 1992 in Joined Cases C-104/89 and C-37/90, ordered the 
Community to make good the damage the said producers had suffered in so far 
as the original Community legislation did not in fact provide for the 
allocation of an individual reference quantity to them; 
Whereas in a Communication published in the Official Journal on 5 August 
1992^5) the institutions undertook to comply in full with the judgment of 
19 May 1992 as regards all potentially qualifying producers; 
(1) OJ No C 
(2) OJ No C 
(3) OJ No C 
(4) OJ No L 131, 26.5.1977, p. 1. 
(5) OJ No C 198, 5.8.1992, p. 4. 
- 17 -
Whereas the sheer number of those potentially eligible makes it impossible 
to take each case into account on an individual basis and necessitates a 
solution based on a flat-rate approach, to be expressed in the form of an 
offer from the institutions to be accepted in full and final settlement or 
else rejected; whereas the factors on the basis of which the offer is 
calculated should be set out; 
Whereas a direct link should be drawn between the actual resumption of milk 
production in full compliance with the Community provisions which permitted 
such resumption and the existence of an injury consisting in the fact of not 
having been able to resume milk production in good time, despite the wishes 
of the person concerned; whereas, in the same spirit and to ensure that a 
producer has not resumed activity with the sole aim of speculating on the 
supposed asset value of the reference quantity allocated to him, both the 
broad entitlement to compensation and the amount of that compensation should 
be subject to certain conditions; 
Whereas, subject to the above, the quantity to be compensated must be 
calculated in accordance with the principles underlying the terms of the 
Court j udgment; 
Whereas in their Communication of 5 August 1992 the institutions waived, for 
the benefit of potential beneficiaries and for the future, their right to 
plead the five-year time bar on claims, laid down in Article 43 of the 
Statute of the Court of Justice; whereas it can furthermore be accepted that 
in the present case the injury ended only upon resumption of milk 
production; whereas, therefore, for the benefit of all those concerned, the 
period for which compensation is being offered and the circumstances under 
which the time bar on entitlement may once again come into effect should be 
stated; 
Whereas under the terms of the Court judgment the amount of the compensation 
must equal the difference between, on the one hand, the income which those 
concerned would have received from marketing milk had they not been 
prevented from doing so and, on the other hand, the income which they 
actually obtained during the same period or could have obtained by showing 
reasonable diligence; 
- 18 -
Whereas the number of variables to be considered first of all in 
reconstituting the income from milk production and secondly in establishing 
alternative sources of income would lead in the end to the merits of each 
case being looked at separately, which cannot reasonably be expected given 
the sheer number of producers involved; whereas only a comprehensive 
estimate of the damage is thus feasible; whereas to avoid underestimating 
the injury, however, the various factors chosen for calculating the 
compensation operate as a general rule to the benefit of the applicants; 
Whereas the potential revenue from marketing is calculated from the gross 
margin for dairy farming, which on the receipts side includes sales of milk, 
calves born to dairy cows and the residual value of the dairy cow, and on 
the expenses side deducts only the variable costs which are immediately 
eliminated when milk production ceases and not the fixed costs relating to 
land, labour and capital; 
Whereas, in calculating the replacement income, no account was taken, 
inter alia, of the alternative income from the capital released by 
abandoning milk production, on the basis that the producer concerned wanted 
eventually to resume such production and that the options for using the 
capital otherwise were accordingly limited; 
Whereas under the terms of this Regulation the Member States have all the 
information required to calculate, once the application is accepted, not 
only the quantity to be compensated but also the period concerned and the 
final amount of compensation to be offered on behalf of the institutions; 
whereas in fact the operation can be carried out only with the aid and 
through the agency of the Member States, which are indeed the sole holders 
of the individual items of information required to calculate each 
compensation sum; 
Whereas, should the settlement of some cases require the Member States to 
seek the opinion of the institutions - especially where such cases fall 
outside the scope of this Regulation although qualifying on their specific 
merits for acceptance - the Commission should have responsibility for making 
the required decision, 
- 19 -
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 
Article 1 
Compensation on the terms set out in this Regulation shall be granted to 
those producers who have suffered loss as a result of being prevented by an 
undertaking given under Council Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77 from delivering 
or selling milk or milk products during the reference year selected by the 
Member State concerned under the additional levy scheme in the milk and milk 
products sector. 
Article 2 
An application for compensation shall be deemed eligible if it is submitted 
by a producer who has been allocated a definitive special reference quantity 
under the conditions set out in Article 3a(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) 
No 857/84(6), either on 29 March 1991 by virtue of Council Regulation (EEC) 
No 764/89 (7) or on 1 July 1993 by virtue of Council Regulation (EEC) 
No 1639/91(8). 
Article 3 
If the applicant for compensation and the person to whom the definitive 
special reference quantity has been allocated are not one and the same, the 
competent authority referred to in Article 10 shall decide to allow or 
refuse the application after verifying: 
- in the case of the producer receiving the reference quantity, that he 
satisfies the conditions in this Regulation governing the right to 
compensât ion; 
in the case of the applicant for compensation, that the entitlement 
under which he is applying for compensation is a legitimate one. 
(6) OJ No L 90, 1.4.1984, p. 13. 
(7) OJ No L 84, 29.3.1989, p. 2. 
(8) OJ No L 150, 15.6.1991, p. 35. 
- 20 -
Article 4 
Notwithstanding Article 2, an application shall not be accepted if the 
producer who has received the definitive allocation of a reference quantity 
under Regulation (EEC) No 764/89 either has not complied with his 
undertaking not to take part in any programme of cessation of milk 
production until 31 March 1992 or has sold or leased all his holding prior 
to that date. 
Article 5 
An application made by a producer who will receive the definitive allocation 
of the reference quantity by virtue of Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91 on 1 July 
1993 shall be accepted on condition that he does not take part in any 
programme of cessation of milk production and that he does not sell or lease 
his holding in its entirety on or before 1 July 1994. 
Article 6 
The competent authority referred to in Article 10 shall determine the annual 
quantity to be compensated on the basis of the quantity used to calculate 
the premium granted pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77, increased by 1% 
and reduced by a percentage representing the reductions applied in each 
Member State to the reference quantities of producers established in 
accordance with Articles 2 and 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84. 
Article 7 
If the definitive special quantity allocated pursuant to Article 3a of 
Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 is less than 80% of the provisional special 
quantity or if the holding is sold or leased in part prior to 1 April 1992 
or prior to 1 July 1994 (as the case may be), the annual quantity to be 
compensated shall be reduced by the quantity returned to the national 
reserve. 
Article 8 
1. The compensation shall be granted only for the period for which the 
right to compensation is not time-barred. 
- 21 -
2. For the purpose of determining the period for which the compensation 
shall be offered: 
(a) the date of interruption of the five-year time bar set by Article 
43 of the Statute of the Court of Justice shall be the date of the 
application addressed to one of the institutions of the Community, 
or in the case of an action brought before the Court of Justice the 
date on which the application is entered in its register, or at the 
latest the date of the Communication published in Official Journal 
No C 198 of 5 August 1992; 
(b) the date of commencement of the compensation period shall be five 
years prior to the date of interruption of the bar, but may not 
fall before 2 April 1984 or the date on which the non-marketing or 
conversion undertaking expired; 
(c) The date of termination of the compensation period shall be either 
29 March 1989 for those producers who received the special 
reference quantity by virtue of Regulation (EEC) No 764/89 or 
13 July 1991 for those producers who received the special reference 
quantity by virtue of Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91. 
Article 9 
If production was resumed prior to allocation of the provisional special 
quantity the quantity to be compensated shall be reduced for the period 
concerned by the quantities delivered or sold directly before that date. 
Article 10 
1. The application for compensation must be addressed to the competent 
authority designated for that purpose in each Member State, using a 
form drawn up by that authority. 
2. Where a producer derives his right to a special reference quantity from 
Regulation (EEC) No 764/89 he shall send his application to the 
competent authority by 31 July 1993 at the latest; that date shall be 
replaced by 31 August 1993 if the right was obtained by virtue of 
Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91. 
- 22 -
The limitation period under Article 43 of the Statute of the Court 
shall start to run afresh for all producers on whichever of the two 
dates referred to in the first subparagraph is appropriate, if the 
application referred to in that subparagraph has not been made prior to 
such date, save where the limitation period has been interrupted by 
virtue of the said Article 43 by an application to the Court of 
Justice. 
Article 11 
The competent authority referred to in Article 10 shall check the accuracy 
of the information provided by the producer and shall calculate the amount 
of the compensation on the basis of the quantity and the period in respect 
of which compensation is due, using the amounts specified in the Annex 
hereto* 
% ^^ Article 12 
The amount of the compensation shall be increased by default interest of 8% 
from 19 May 1992. 
Article 13 
The total amount of the compensation shall be converted into national 
currency using the agricultural conversion rate applicable on the date on 
which this Regulation enters into force. 
Article 14 
Within a maximum of four months from receipt of the application the 
competent authority referred to in Article 10 shall, in the name and on 
behalf of the Council and the Commission, make an offer of compensation to 
the producer, accompanied by a receipt in full and final settlement. 
Where the producer derives his right to a special reference quantity: 
from Regulation (EEC) No 764/89, the compensation shall be paid on 
receipt of the returned receipt, duly approved and signed by the 
producer; 
- 23 -
from Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91, the compensation shall be paid - on 
condition that the receipt has been returned duly approved and signed 
by the producer - after 1 July 1994, so as to allow the competent 
authority to check that Articles 5 and 7 have been complied with, 
unless the producer lodges with that authority a security amounting to 
115% of the compensation fixed prior to the application of the 
abovementioned Articles, as a guarantee of compliance with the 
conditions set out in those Articles. 
Failure to accept the offer within two months of its receipt shall mean that 
it shall not be binding in the future on the Community institutions 
concerned. 
Acceptance of the offer by the return to the competent authority of the duly 
approved and signed receipt shall imply the relinquishment of any claim of 
whatever nature against the Community institutions in respect of the loss 
defined in Article 1. 
Article 15 
Detailed rules for the application of this Regulation, and in particular the 
provisions regarding payment of the costs of producers' agents incurred 
prior to 5 August 1992, shall be adopted by the Commission in accordance 
with the procedure laid down in Article 30 of Council Regulation (EEC) 
No 804/68(9). The Commission, following the same procedure and at the duly 
reasoned request of a Member State, may in exceptional circumstances allow 
the eligibility of applications not covered by the cases provided for in 
this Regulation. 
Article 16 
Financing of the payments made pursuant to this Regulation shall be deemed 
to be intervention within the meaning of Article 3 of Council Regulation 
(EEC) No 729/70(10). 
(9) OJ NO L 148, 26.6.1968, p. 13. 
(10) OJ No L 94, 28.4.1970, p. 13. 
- 24 -
Expenditure must be committed against 1993 appropriations on the basis of 
applications received by the Member States, the total amount of which shall 
be notified to the Commission not later than 30 September 1993. The paying 
agencies must effect the payments before 15 October 1994. 
Article 17 
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its 
publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. 
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in 
all Member States. 
Done at Brussels, For the Council 
- zç 
Annex 
Compensation to be offered pursuant to Article 11 (ECU per 100 kg of milk) 
Year I Farm-Size 
<50000 kg < 120000 kg > 120000 kg 
1990/91 9.4 10.3 11.2 
1989/90 10.4 11.3 12.3 
1988/89 9.9 10.8 11.8 
1987/88 8.1 9 9.9 
1986/87 7.8 8.7 9.6 
1985/86 8.6 9.5 10.4 
11984/85 I 7,4 &3 ^3 
- 26 
Financial Statement Date : 17.3.1993 
1. BUDGET HEADING : B1-2090 APPROPRIATIONS: (PDSAB) ECU 255 ml 11 ion 
2. TITLE : 
Draft Council Regulation providing for an offer of compensation to certain producers of milk or milk 
products temporarily prevented from carrying on their trade 
3. LEGAL BASIS : Article 43 of the Treaty 
4. AIMS 
As a result of the Court of Justice judgment of 19 May 1992 concerning certain milk producers 
excluded from the allocation of a reference quantity, this measure makes good the injury suffered 
by the said producers (known as SLOM producers) through the offer of flat—rate compensation. 
5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 
5.0 EXPENDITURE 
- CHARGED TO THE EC BUDGET 
(INTERVENTIONS) 
5.1 REVENUE 
- OWN RESOURCES OF THE EC 
(LEVIES/CUSTOMS DUTIES) 
- NATIONAL PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS 
+ ECU 255 million CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR 
( 1993 ) 
+ ECU 255 mil lion FOLLOWING FINANCIAL YEAR 
( 1994 ) 
p.m. 
5.0.1 ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE 
5.1.1 ESTIMATED REVENUE 
5.2 METHOD OF CALCULATION 
See annex 
6.0 CAN THE^PROJECT BE FINANCED FROM APPROPRIATIONS ENTERED IN THE RELEVANT CHAPTER OF THE CURRENT BUDGET ? 
YES 
6.1 CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED BY TRANSFER BETWEEN CHAPTERS OF THE CURRENT BUDGET ? 
6.2 WILL A SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET BE NECESSARY ? 
NO 
6.3 WILL FUTURE BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS BE NECESSARY ? 
NO 
COMMENTS : 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(93) 161 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 03 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-93-198-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-55069-4 
Office for Official Publications of the European Commiiitfties 
L-2985 Luxembourg