2.

In order to encourage the processing industry to use oil seeds from the Member States, Article 27 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 136 of 22 September 1966 on the establishment of a common organization of the market in oils and fats ( 1 ) provided for the granting of a processing subsidy for colza, rape and sunflower seeds. The general principles governing the granting of that subsidy are laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 1594/83 of 14 June 1983 ( 2 ) and the detailed rules for the application of the system by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2681/83 of 21 September 1983. ( 3 ) For the purposes of this case, it should be borne in mind that under Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1594/83, ( 4 ) the amount of the subsidy granted, which is equal to the difference between the target price applicable for a seed variety and the world market price, ‘shall be that which is applicable on the day on which the Member State concerned identifies the seed’, that is to say assumes control of the seed at an oil mill or a feed mill. The amount of the subsidy may, however, be fixed in advance and, in that case, the amount applicable is that of the day on which the application was lodged, adjusted in accordance with Article 7 of the regulation, that is to say in the light of ‘the difference between the target price valid on that day and that valid on the day on which the seeds arc identified’ and, ‘if necessary, a corrective amount’. That amount is determined, under Article 7(2), taking into account price trends for the product on the world market and, where appropriate, the economic advan tages accruing from the processing of the main competing seeds. Article 4 of the same regulation introduces a two-part Community certificate, one part of which (known as the ‘ID’ part) is intended to provide proof that the seeds harvested in the Community have been identified at an oil mill or a feed mill, while the other (the ‘AP’ part) is intended to certify, where such is the case, that the amount of the subsidy has been fixed in advance. Where that is the case, Article 5 provides that the issue of the certificate ‘shall be subject to the provision of a security to guarantee the obligation to request identification of the seeds ... during the period of validity of that part of the certificate. The security shall be forfeited in whole or in part if, during that period, such a request is not made or is made only for a part of the quantity concerned’. Article 10(2) of Regulation No 2681/83 imposes an obligation to request identification from the competent national authorities during the period of validity of the certificate, and Article 11 of that same regulation specifies that, with regard to sunflower seeds — the subject-matter of the main proceedings — that period expires at the end of the fourth month following that during which the application was lodged. If that obligation is not fulfilled by the party concerned within the time-limit laid down, Article 23(2) of the regulation provides that the security is to be forfeited in respect of a quantity equal to the difference between 93 % of the net quantity shown on the certificate and the quantity identified at the undertaking, determined in accordance with the method defined in Annex I to the regulation. However, if the quantity identified amounts to less than 7% of the net quantity shown in the certificate, the whole of the security is to be forfeited. Finally, Article 24 provides for a derogation for reasons of force majeure, in which case the competent authority of the Member State issuing the certificate is to decide, at the request of the titular holder, either to cancel the obligations imposed, and thus that the security is to be released, or that the validity of the certificate is to be extended for the period of time considered necessary in the circumstances.