4.

Let us come then to what in my view must be regarded as the central issue of the reference for a preliminary ruling, namely the question whether the concept of ‘agricultural holding’ in Community law, in so far as it is ascertainable, must be applied to the national social security law where, as in Iulian law, there is a distinction between agricultural holdings and other businesses. This is the view which the plaintiff in the main aai on takes. The plaintiff refers to the fact that in the sphere with which it is concerned (egg production and poultry raising) there are two common organizations of the market (Regulations Nos 2771/75 and 2777/75 (Official Journal No L 282 of 1 November 1975, p. 49 and p. 77). Therefore it may be inferred that to this extent legislative jurisdiction has been completely transferred to the Community and that the Member States have no rival powers in respect of regulations to influence the competitive position on the egg and poultry market. It refers moreover in support of its case to the case-law of the Court claiming that in this respect it is significant that in Case 34/70, Syndicat National du Commerce Extérieur des Céréales and Others v Office National Interprofessionnel des Céréales and Minister for Agriculture [1970] ECR 1233 the necessity is stressed of understanding the words ‘every holder’ [of cereals] in the sense they have in Community law and that in the judgment in Case 131/73, Grosoli [1973] ECR 1555 it was stressed in relation to a Community quota of frozen beef and veal that the Member States did not have authority to lay down rules governing the use of the quota and that accordingly it was not possible to lay down national restrictions on the sale of the said products. Let me say at once that I have not been convinced by these arguments. First it is significant — and here I refer to the concepts to be found in the secondary Community law — that their application is limited to the content of the particular rules. This is in part expressly stated in these particular Community measures and in part it may at least be clearly inferred from them. I refer now only to Regulations Nos 70/66, 91/66 and 3228/76 and Directives Nos 72/159 and 75/108. In so far as this limitation of the definition to the particular rule is not completely apparent from the rule itself, it may in my view, at least in so far as the general words ‘agricultural holding’ are concerned, be inferred from the Treaty. In my opinion it must be taken that this concept applies essentially only to the rules of the Common Agricultural Policy, that is, the areas covered in Part two, Title II. Sufficient authority for this is Article 38 (2) of the Treaty which provides that the rules laid down for the establishment of the Common Market shall apply to agricultural products save as otherwise provided in Articles 39 to 46. In my view therefore it is irrelevant to claim that only by interpreting the words ‘agricultural holding’ in the sense they have in Community law is it possible properly to apply the regulations on the grant of aids to agricultural holdings such as were adopted in 1969 and 1973 in favour of the German and Dutch agriculture (Regulation No 2464/69 of the Council of 9 December 1969 (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 527) and Regulation No 3141/73 of the Council of 19 November 1973 (Official Journal No L 321 of 22 November 1973, p. 1)). In this respect it should not be forgotten that these two regulations were concerned with the Common Agricultural Policy. For the same reason the plaintiff's reference to the said two judgments, particularly the judgment in Case 34/70, does not help. This is also concerned with measures under a common organization of the market (the intervention arrangements in Regulation No 1028/68) and for that it is quite clear that a uniform concept in Community law of ‘every holder’ [of cereals] must apply and that the Member States may not alter or restrict it. So far as concerns social security law in particular, with which the main action is concerned, it is quite apparent from the system of the Treaty that its regulation and thus also the determination of the requisite definition is a matter for the Member States. In this respect reference may be made to Article 118 of the EEC Treaty which provides .only for close co-operation between the Member States in the social field but not for establishing a single system or for harmonization and moreover according to what the Commission says no Community provisions have yet been adopted on this subject. Reference should also be made to Article 51 of the Treaty which provides only for co-ordination of the law on social security for the purposes of facilitating freedom of movement and assumes that different national social security systems will continue. In the same way the recitals in the preamble to Regulation No 1408/71 (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416) refer to the considerable differences existing between national social security legislations. Moreover the regulation is mainly directed to benefits from social security and the avoidance of the loss of rights in this respect whereas contributions are touched on only to a limited extent as in Article 91 which provides that an employer shall not be bound to pay increased contributions by reason of the fact that his place of business or the registered office or place of business of his undertaking is in the territory of a Member State other than the competent State. In view of the foregoing remarks it may be said that in the sphere of social security, the regulation of which is basically for the Member States, the concept of ‘agricultural holding’ under Community law is no criterion. This may well affect the holdings covered by the common organizations of the market since their production costs may differ according to their classification. The Commission is however right in stressing that this is not to be compared with the cases of national measures dealt with in the case-law (such as in the judgment of 25 May 1977 in Case 77/76, Fratelli Cucchi v Avez S.p.A. [1977] ECR 987) which relate directly and intentionally to the formation of prices and which because they affect the price formation mechanisms of Community law must be judged by the requirements of Community law.