4.

A third group of questions, to be dealt with together, relate to the place where the cereals are when the offer for intervention is made. In this respect the national court would like to know whether the cereals in question must be stationary in a particular place when the offer is made or whether cereals in transit can be offered for intervention. Further, clarification is sought whether the effectiveness of an offer depends on particulars being given of the place where the cereals are when the offer is made. It appears to me that the answer to these questions too creates no unusual difficulties. The way the intervention system functions can be deduced clearly from the relevant provisions. Thus offers for intervention in accordance with Article 1 of Regulation No 132/67 are to be made in respect of a marketing centre chosen from among the three centres nearest to the place where the cereals are when the offer is made. The nearest marketing centres means centres for which intervention prices have been fixed and to which the cereals can be sent at least cost. The intervention agencies then decide on the place where the cereals are to be taken over. If the intervention agency takes over the cereals at any place other than the marketing centre indicated by the seller, the price to be paid is equal to the intervention price valid at the marketing centre indicated by the seller, less the most advantageous transport costs between the place where the cereals are when the offer is made and the marketing centre. If the intervention agency takes over the cereals at a place other than the marketing centre indicated by the seller and other than the place where the cereals are when the offer is made, then, as is further stated in Article 2 of Regulation No 132/67, the costs of transport from the place where the cereals are to the place where they are taken over are to be borne by the intervention agency. It is thus significant that the person making the offer has to choose from among three marketing centres defined in relation to the place where the cereals are. It is further significant that the intervention agency thereupon, and, as is laid down in Regulation No 1028, without delay, has to designate a place for taking over. In this it is guided inter alia by the transport costs involved which, as is laid down in Regulation No 132/67, are determined by the agency. Accordingly it may be accepted that the intervention rule assumes that the cereals offered are at a fixed place when the offer is made. Even if it were assumed that it is possible to choose a marketing centre for goods which are in transit and continually changing their place when the offer is made, it must be observed that in such a case the check which the intervention agency is obliged to make of the correctness of the choice is made much more difficult if not impossible. The rules made further imply that particulars of the place where the cereals are should be given directly when the offer is made, for the intervention agency must make its decision without delay, that is, without time-consuming enquiries and questions; this applies also to the transport costs involved which, in the interests of economic administration, are to be kept as low as possible. According to the wording and the reasons given for the rules relating to intervention it may thus be stated that an effective offer for intervention presupposes a fixed place when the offer is made and a statement of the particulars. This conclusion would basically suffice since the criterion is essentially the meaning in Community law of the concept under consideration, in view of the fact that the concept of an offer in the Commission Decision of May 1969, which has the function of limiting the authorization to the national legislature, is the central issue. For the sake of completeness however I intend to show that there need be no change in the answer given even if the peculiarities of national law were considered. In this connexion I refer to the plaintiffs’ references to the German implementation provisions, that is to the Richtlinien issued by the Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle on 3 October 1967 in consultation with the representatives of the German cereal industry and which according to a notice of 1 August 1968 applied also to the 1968/69 marketing year. From these it appears, or so the plaintiffs allege, that the Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle has designated in advance a number of places for taking over with special prices for taking over and has thus caused interested parties to conclude appropriate contracts for storage. No 5.11 of the Richtlinien indeed states: ‘With regard to certain places for taking over (depots) the Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide has reached a general decision to the effect that it will take over at the depots themselves (depots listed in Annex C) cereals which are in such depots and are offered to it for intervention’. In the context of this rule accordingly the decision on the place for taking over which, under the intervention system, has to be made by the Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle alone has already been made on a general basis and therefore the requirement that the cereals must be in a fixed place when the offer is made is meaningless and without purpose. As a result in view of this rule it follows, so it is alleged, that offers must be accepted as valid even where there are no particulars of the place where the cereals are. Various objections may be made to this argument which certainly at first sight is impressive. First of all it is established that the simplified procedure (as the parties have called it) set out there is not the only one which is used but that the normal system, if it may be so called, of Regulation No 132 is also used. In this event the form used by the Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle expressly requires particulars of the place where the cereals are. Apparently the latter procedure, as appears from the grounds of the order for a preliminary ruling and the pleadings, was used in the case of the first plaintiff. At least in this respect therefore the references of the plaintiffs to the procedural rules of the Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle are irrelevant. Over and above this it would be well to check whether the plaintiffs' version of the so-called simplified procedure is indeed correct. In so far as mention is made in the Richtlinien of the Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle of agreements between sellers and depot proprietors then obviously, as appears from the express reference to the acceptance of the offer, agreements made thereafter are intended. Moreover, and this is even more important, the condition still apparently holds even where the simplified procedure is used that the cereals offered must be in a fixed place when the offer is made. According to the convincing explanations of the Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle Form D conceived for both procedures is to be so understood for under entry No 7 in the case of the simplified procedure express assurance is sought that the cereals are already in a specified place for taking over. It cannot therefore be said that when the simplified procedure is used the place where the cereals are and particulars thereof are irrelevant. An explanation of this is easy. As we learned in the proceedings, the acceptance of the offer involves the administration in a certain amount of expense. In view of this there must accordingly be no doubt at this time that the intervention agency to which application is made is competent in respect of the offer made and that the cereals are in the area over which it has jurisdiction. Even if the answer to the questions raised were to depend on the structure of the national rules of procedure the finding must therefore remain that particulars of the place where the cereals are when the offer is made for intervention cannot be omitted.