8.

It seems to me that the arguments put forward by the institutions cannot be refuted. Moreover, they are supported by the following table of statistics, supplied by the Commission at the Court's request, on the butter and skimmed-milk powder held by intervention agencies in the EEC. Butter and skimmed-milk powder held by intervention agencies in the EEC (in tonnes) Butter Skimmed-milk powder 1. 1. 1974 201 156 165 579 1. 1. 1975 147 624 365 180 1. 1. 1976 163 833 1 112 485 1. 1. 1977 155 367 1 135 484 1. 1. 1978 194 292 964 727 1. 1. 1979 417 975 673 906 1. 1. 1980 371 652 227 223 1. 1. 1981 239 359 229 732 1. 1. 1982 147 202 278 929 1. 1. 1983 305 742 576 294 1. 1. 1984 853 393 982 885 This table shows that the milk surpluses are made up not only, or even chiefly, of butter produced from milk fat, but also involve skimmed-milk powder with a low fat and high protein content. Surpluses thus are not caused exclusively, or even mainly, by milk with a high fat content. Thus, regardless of its composition and in particular of its fat and protein content, milk is likely to give rise to surpluses: that also explains the fact that more than 90% of the milk produced in the Community is supplied to dairies. In fact the formation of surpluses as a result of intervention is simply a reflection of the hitherto growing gap between the regular increase in potential milk production and the lack of growth of consumption. The chosen method of calculating the amount of ; the levy meets the requirements of that ; situation. To meet a general imbalance on the market, the Community legislature clearly intended to impose ‘a uniform co-responsibility levy... on all milk delivered to dairies ...’ (second recital to Regulation No 1079/77). The fact that a flat rate was applied is evidence of that intention and also illustrates the purpose of the levy: without jeopardizing the policy of support through intervention, it is designed to correct the unacceptable consequences of that policy by reintroducing the relationship which there should be between supply and demand. The first part of the second recital in the preamble to Regulation No 1079/77 is relevant here: it states that ‘a more direct link should be established between production and outlet for milk products’ in order ‘gradually to restore equilibrium between production and market requirements’ and ‘to reduce the heavy costs incurred by the Community as a result of the present situation and in particular of the large surpluses which exist’. The Community legislature's decision to calculate the amount of the levy on the basis of the target price for milk reflects its desire for consistency. Its objective is in fact in some way to restore market awareness. In that light the target price is seen to be the most appropriate means of giving producers such awareness, since it is the price which the Community seeks to guarantee on the market for the products in question. The target price is the normal market price for the coming year: it was chosen as the basis of assessment of the levy out of a desire to focus producers' attention on actual market conditions. In short, as is quite clear from its title, the levy is intended to pass on responsibility to all milk producers by making them aware of the need to strive for a balance between supply and demand, upset by the system of a common organization of the market which guaranteed the producer an outlet for his products at the intervention price, regardless of the quantities available. It therefore seems to me that the uniform application of the levy to all producers is justified by market conditions and so well adapted to the objective pursued that it cannot be disassociated from it: the co-responsibility levy not only represents a choice of strategy — to reestablish normal market relationships — but also the choice of a tactic which is closely connected with it: to make every producer responsible, by means of a personal contribution to the financial charges of the administration of the various milk surpluses. Therefore the Council cannot at this stage be accused of having made a manifest error in its assessment of the market situation or consequently of having discriminated between milk producers. There is therefore no foundation for the claim of misuse of powers.