THE CHANGE IN DEMAND FOR THE AFORESAID PRODUCTS IN CONSEQUENCE OF A CHANGE IN THEIR PRICE
45 SO FAR AS THIS QUESTION IS CONCERNED, IT MUST FIRST BE POINTED OUT THAT THE UNITED KINGDOM HAS NOT PUT FORWARD ALTERNATIVE CALCULATIONS TO REBUT THOSE ADVANCED BY THE COMMISSION AS REGARDS CHANGES IN DEMAND FOR PACKET BUTTER, CASEIN AND MILK PRODUCTS EXPORTED OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY .
46 HOWEVER, AS REGARDS SKIMMED MILK FOR ANIMAL FEED, THE UNITED KINGDOM HAS ARGUED THAT THE COMMISSION OUGHT TO HAVE CALCULATED THE CHANGE IN DEMAND FOR THIS PRODUCT ON THE BASIS OF A PRICE ELASTICITY COEFFICIENT OF BETWEEN -0.24 AND -1.03 AND NOT -1.27 .
47 IT MUST BE EMPHASIZED IN THIS RESPECT THAT THE PRICE ELASTICITY COEFFICIENT OF -1.27 WAS DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION FOLLOWING LENGTHY BILATERAL DISCUSSIONS WITH THE UNITED KINGDOM AUTHORITIES AND THAT IN THE COURSE OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS THE COMMISSION TOOK ACCOUNT OF THE DATA AND INFORMATION PROVIDED TO IT BY THE UNITED KINGDOM AND AGREED TO AMEND SIGNIFICANTLY THE ELASTICITY COEFFICIENT ORIGINALLY ADOPTED, WHICH WAS -4 . IT MUST ALSO BE POINTED OUT THAT AMONGST THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT IS A REPORT DRAWN UP IN 1980 BY A RESEARCH ORGANIZATION ON BEHALF OF THE MILK MARKETING BOARDS FROM WHICH IT EMERGES THAT PRICE IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR - AND EVEN THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR FOR ONE THIRD OF USERS - IN DETERMINING THE CHOICE OF ANIMAL FEED .
48 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT MUST BE FOUND THAT THE UNITED KINGDOM HAS NOT PROVED THAT THE COMMISSION' S CALCULATIONS REGARDING CHANGE IN DEMAND FOR THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION ARE WRONG .
49 IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE FACTORS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN ORDER TO CALCULATE THE AMOUNTS DISALLOWED, IT MUST BE CONCLUDED THAT THE UNITED KINGDOM HAS NOT SATISFIED THE COURT THAT THE DUAL PRICING PRACTICES IN QUESTION DID NOT CAUSE ANY INCREASE IN EAGGF EXPENDITURE OR, AT THE VERY LEAST, THAT THEY CAUSED AN INCREASE LOWER THAN THAT CALCULATED BY THE COMMISSION . THE COMMISSION WAS THEREFORE RIGHT TO REFUSE TO CHARGE TO THE EAGGF EXPENDITURE CORRESPONDING TO THE AMOUNT WHICH IT HAD CALCULATED .
THE SAVINGS TO THE EAGGF IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE DIFFERENTIAL PRICING PRACTICES
50 THE UNITED KINGDOM ARGUES THAT IF THE DUAL PRICING PRACTICES IN QUESTION CAUSED AN INCREASE IN EXPENDITURE ON AID FOR SKIMMED-MILK POWDER AND ON EXPORT REFUNDS, THEY NECESSARILY ENTAILED A REDUCTION IN EXPENDITURE ON AID FOR ANIMAL FEED AND CASEIN AND ON INTERVENTION MEASURES . IN VIEW OF THOSE POSITIVE EFFECTS, THE PRACTICES COMPLAINED OF DID NOT IN THIS CASE CAUSE AN OVERALL INCREASE IN EAGGF EXPENDITURE . IN ITS VIEW, THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION IS THEREFORE UNJUSTIFIED .
51 THE COMMISSION REPLIES THAT THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD BY THE UNITED KINGDOM CANNOT BE ACCEPTED BECAUSE THEY ARE BASED ON A MISINTERPRETATION OF THE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE FINANCING OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY AND OF THE SPECIFIC RULES GOVERNING THE PROCEDURE FOR