1.

These preliminary proceedings concern the interpretation of a provision of Regulation (EEC) No 269/73 of the Commission of 31 January 1973 laying down detailed conditions for application of the system of “accession” compensatory amounts (Official Journal 1973, L 30, p. 73) amended by Regulation No 1466/73 of 30 May 1973 (Official Journal 1973, L 146, p. 13). As is known, the compensatory amounts of the type in question were introduced by the Act concerning the Conditions of Accession to the European Communities of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom. Articles 51 and 52 of that Act made provision for the prices of agricultural products in the new Member States during the transitional period to be fixed by the Community authorities at levels different from those of the common prices. By virtue of Article 55 (1) of the Act, those differences were to be offset by means of a system of compensatory amounts which, in trade between the new Member States and between them and the Community as originally constituted, would be levied by the importing State or granted by the exporting State. Those amounts were then progressively reduced during the five-year transitional period at the same time as the annual alignment of the agricultural prices fixed for the new Member States with the common prices determined at the beginning of each agricultural year. The preamble to Regulation No 229/73 of the Council of 31 January 1973 (Official Journal 1973, L 27, p. 25) which laid down the general rules for the system of “accession” compensatory amounts in the cereals sector stated inter alia that the aim of the rules was to permit the satisfactory circulation of products between two Member States with different price levels. For that purpose, the regulation provided that an exporter of cereals from a Member State where the prices were higher would be entitled to receive a compensatory amount and the importer of cereals from a Member State where the price level was lower would be obliged to pay a compensatory amount. As I pointed out in my opinion in Case 6/78, Union Française de Céréales ([1978] ECR 1686), in the case of exports from the original Member States to the new Member States (where the prices of cereals were lower) the function of the system of “accession” compensatory amounts was in substance identical to that of refunds on exports to non-member countries. In both cases it was intended to overcome, through the grant of aids to exporters, the obstacle to exports constituted by the higher level of prices in the Community area compared with non-member countries, or in the old Community area compared with the new Member States. The same function was of course served by the compensatory amounts paid to exporters in relation to trade between two new Member States by reason of the fact that the price levels in one of them (the exporting country) were higher than the levels in the importing country. As regards the level of the compensatory amounts, those which were to be applied in trade between the Community as originally constituted and one of the new Member States were equal to the difference between the prices fixed by the competent Community institutions for the new Member State concerned and the common prices (Article 55 (2) of the Act of Accession and Article 1 of Regulation No 229/73 of the Council). In the trade between the new Member States, the compensatory amounts were however equal to the difference between the amounts applicable to trade between each of the new Member States and the Community as originally constituted (Article 55 (3) of the Act of Accession and Article 3 of Regulation No 229/73). It should be borne in mind in connection with this case that Article 6 of Regulation No 229/73 permitted the introduction of a system of advance fixing the compensatory amount analogous to the one provided for under the system of import levies and export refunds applicable to trade with non-member countries. Regulation No 3280/73 of the Commission of 4 December 1973 (Official Journal 1973, L 337, p. 14) provided for the establishment of that system and prescribed inter alia that the compensatory amount should be calculated at the rate in force on the day on which each application for the issue of an advance-fixing certificate was lodged. The period of validity of that certificate would be limited, furthermore, a certificate issued in one of the original Member States could also be used in another original Member State. As regards cereals, provision was made for the compulsory lodgement of a security of three units of account per tonne; the security would be released upon production of proof of completion of the customs formalities prescribed in Article 8 of Regulation No 3280/73 and, in the case of exportation, further proof that the product had left the territory of the Member State in which those formalities were completed. I would emphasize finally that by virtue of Article 5 of Regulation No 269/73 of the Commission, as amended by Regulation No 1466/73, payment of the compensatory amount to the exporter was also conditional upon the furnishing of proof that the product had left the geographical territory of the Member State in which the export customs formalities were completed. That proof had to be furnished by production of the so-called T/5 control copy endorsed by the authorities of the State of destination, and bearing inter alia the following declaration by the exporter: “intended for entry for home use”. It will be seen, however, that there is a lack of concordance between the various language versions of this provision and it is precisely for that reason that the trial court's doubts have arisen.