4.

Accordingly it can be stated that the powers of the Member States are not necessarily confined to purely organizational and executive matters, even within fields governed by a very exhaustive body of law relating to a common organization of the market, but that they definitely also have a certain freedom of action in the sphere of substantive law. Nor does that freedom of action even have to be conferred expressly; it may, where necessary, arise by implication from the use of undefined concepts in connexion with the indication of the objective of a regulation. Furthermore, the decided cases which have been mentioned make it clear that the solution to the problem with which we are concerned in this case turns mainly on the context in which Regulation No 2902/77 was adopted and also — going beyond its wording — on the purpose for which it was adopted, which can in fact be deduced from the recitals in the preamble thereto. Thence it is important that the specific import arrangements made in Regulation No 2902/77 were above all intended to operate to the benefit of Italy. The regulation in question is a measure of regional policy which was adopted in view of the existing deficit, particularly in Italy, of young male bovine animals; that deficit has its origin in the particular geographical conditions of that country, under which cattle breeders operating on a large scale are very much the exception rather than the rule. It is also apparent that, in so far as the aim of Article 1 (5) of Regulation No 2902/77 is to give preferential treatment to agricultural producers, it had in mind cattle breeders. On this point reference can be made to the aim of the regulation as found in the recitals in its preamble; in this connexion the beforementioned yearly estimate to be drawn up by the Council pursuant to Article 13 of Regulation No 805/68, which mentions the needs of Community breeders, is also relevant. However, I share the view of the Commission and the Italian Government that these are not the only important factors for the interpretation of the regulation and that there is no ground for the conclusion that it purports to give every cattle breeder the right to apply for a specific licence. It must not in fact be overlooked that according to the recitals in the preamble to Regulation No 2902/77 that measure is concerned with improving not only beef and veal production but also cattle rearing structures in Italy. I am convinced that the Commission is right to conclude from that — and not so much from the second subparagraph of Article 1 (5) of the regulation which mentions that the categories of applicants are to be specified — that some power of definition is exerciseable by Italy, which is the Member State particularly mentioned. When requirements of structural policy are at issue the Member States naturally have more accurate knowledge than the Community legislature. It can be said that in fields where structures are to be modified the Community naturally lacks the capacity to be sufficiently specific and this is why in such cases the use of a directive is preferred since such an instrument is only binding as to the result to be achieved and leaves the ways and means to the Member States. However, if the conclusion is thus reached that it can be inferred from the objective of the regulation and from the concepts used in connexion therewith that Italy has the power to give a more precise meaning to the concept ‘agricultural producer’, then there can be no objection if for that purpose reference is made to a law for the implementation of directives which also pursues aims of structural policy. In fact it can scarcely be considered to be inconsistent with the aims of the measure if this resulted in giving preference to undertakings which can be regarded as being in need of help but also capable of development. On the contrary, the fact that a provision such as that adopted in Article 1 (5) of Regulation No 2902/77, which moreover, and this must not be forgotten, only applies to a fraction of possible imports, concentrates on undertakings whose agricultural operations are not merely subsidiary and from the best results are to be expected from the point of view of structural policy, must be regarded as perfectly proper.