2.

It is this last provision which is the main subject of the questions of interpretation which the Tribunal Administratif, Rennes, has submitted for a preliminary ruling in connexion with proceedings brought by Mr Collic, a French farmer, against the Fonds d'orientation et de régularisation des marchés agricoles (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FORMA’) which is, in France, the institution competent to grant the premiums in question and to carry out the relevant inspections. He is seeking the annulment of an order issued by the FORMA against Mr Collic for recovery of the amount already paid of a premium for withholding milk and milk products from the market. Mr Collie had, in fact, signed the undertaking referred to in Article 6 of the said regulation of the Council and had received, as premium, an amount calculated on the basis of 14 dairy cows owned by him at the time when the application was made. Three payments were made to him namely on 14 May 1970, 25 August 1971 and 18 August 1972, the last two after inspections, both of which proved satisfactory, by the FORMA. However, when the third inspection was made, on 13 September 1973, the officials of the FORMA found that the farmer had on his premises only 4.4 adult bovine units, calculated in accordance with the said Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2195/69. On account of this the farmer could therefore be considered to have failed to fulfil the obligations imposed on him by Community legislation (in particular by the second subparagraph of Article 8 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1975/69 under which he was required to show that he owned at least 14 adult bovine units). Despite this, the FORMA did not at that time take any steps against Mr Collic and decided to carry out a further inspection five months later, when 6.4 adult bovine units were found to be on his premises. At this juncture an order was served on the farmer to repay the sum of FF 11633.79 of the amount of premium received. (This demand for repayment was, however, later reduced by approximately one-third.) Before the Tribunal Administratif, Rennes, the applicant contested the correctness of the method followed by the FORMA in calculating the number of adult bovine units held by him; in his view, if the calculation were carried out by the correct method it would show that at the material time he fully complied with Community legislation. He referred to the fact that, at the time of the last two inspections, he had, over and above the adult bovine units referred to by the FORMA, 150 calves less than 4 months old which he claims to have subsequently sold after they reached the age of 4 ½ months. His contention is that the age of the calves to be taken into account for the purposes of the said Article 2 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2195/69 is that of each animal at the time of sale. On the other hand, the FORMA argues that, even if, at the time of the inspection, account were taken of the calves intended to be sold on reaching the age of 4 months, it would nevertheless be necessary to calculate the number of adult bovine units held by the farmer in proportion to the time for which they had been on his premises, assuming a reference period of one complete year as the normal criterion. The calves should, accordingly, be counted from the date on which they reached the age of 4 months and in proportion to the time for which, with effect from that date, they were on the farmer's premises. In this connexion, the FORMA also relies on a circular from the French Ministry for Agriculture (No 4038 of 15 January 1971) in which it is laid down that, for the purposes of applying the Community legislation in question, cattle remaining on the farm for a period of less than one year ‘shall count in their category in proportion to the length of time for which they are there’. On the basis of this criterion and in view of the fact that the person concerned sold his 150 calves at the age of 4 ½ months, the FORMA contends that they can count for at most 15 days. Accordingly, multiplying their number by the length of time for which they were on the farm, expressed in fractions of a year (namely ), and applying to the result of this calculation the rate of conversion of 0.4 laid down in Article 2 (1) (b) of the said regulation of the Commission would produce a figure of 2.5 adult bovine units existing, over and above those counted during the inspections, on the premises of the applicant during the year in question. On the other hand, Mr Collic contests the pro rata temporis criterion and contends, first, that there is need to do no more than multiply the number of calves sold after reaching the age of 4 months by the rate of conversion referred to above, and that, secondly, in any case, even if the contested criterion is applied, account must be taken of all the time required for the rearing of the calf (in the present case, 4 ½ months). By a judgment of 7 July 1976, amended by a further judgment of the following 6 August, the Tribunal Administratif, Rennes, referred the following questions to the Court of Justice under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty: 1. Does Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2195/69 permit cattle on a farm to be taken into account in proportion to the time for which they have been there? 2. In order to establish the rate of conversion must account be taken of the age of the cattle at the date of the inspection or at the date on which they are marketed if the person in receipt of the premium produces evidence that his cattle were marketed after reaching the age of 4 months? 3. Does the interpretation of that regulation, in particular Article 2 thereof, require further details which are necessary for the solution of the case?