THE COMMUNITY LEGISLATION IN QUESTION . ONE OF THE GENERAL AIMS OF THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETS IS TO ENSURE THE PRODUCTION OF HIGH QUALITY CASEIN AND CASEINATES WHICH , AS IS APPARENT FROM THE FIFTH RECITAL IN THE PREAMBLE TO REGULATION NO 987/68 LEADS , IN PARTICULAR , ' ' TO BETTER OUTLETS AND BETTER RETURNS ON THE SALE OF SKIMMED MILKS ' ' . THE CHOICE OF THAT OBJECTIVE , AS A RESULT OF WHICH ON THE MARKET THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION ARE DESCRIBED BY REFERENCE TO THEIR QUALITY , IS FULLY JUSTIFIED .
10 MOREOVER , IN ITS SUCCESSIVE REGULATIONS ON THE AID TO BE GRANTED FOR THE PROCESSING OF SKIMMED MILK INTO CASEIN AND CASEINATES , THE COMMISSION HAS CONSISTENTLY TIGHTENED THE CONDITIONS AS TO QUALITY WITH WHICH THE PRODUCT MUST COMPLY IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR THE AID AND THAT ATTITUDE MERELY CONFIRMS THE FACT THAT THE QUALITY OF THAT PRODUCT MUST BE GUARANTEED .
11 THEREFORE , ON THE BASIS OF THOSE CONSIDERATIONS , THE CONCLUSION MUST BE DRAWN THAT THE WITHHOLDING OF THE AID IN THE EVENT OF THE PRODUCER ' S FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE MAXIMUM WATER CONTENT IS NOT OUT OF PROPORTION TO THE OBJECTIVE PURSUED , WHICH IS TO GUARANTEE THE QUALITY OF THE PRODUCT .
12 AT THE HEARING , THE SOCIETE ALSO AFFIRMED THAT COMPLIANCE WITH A MAXIMUM WATER CONTENT WAS NOT NECESSARY IN ORDER TO GUARANTEE THE QUALITY OF THE PRODUCT . THE COMMISSION REJOINED THAT COMPLIANCE WITH THAT OBLIGATION WAS ESSENTIAL FOR THE ATTAINMENT OF THAT OBJECTIVE AND THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY THEREWITH WAS AMPLE JUSTIFICATION FOR WITHHOLDING OF THE AID IN ITS ENTIRETY .
13 AS IS CLEAR FROM THE FILE ON THE CASE , CASEINATES MAY BE USED FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES OR IN FOODSTUFFS , EITHER AS EMULSIFIERS IN PREPARED MEATS OR TO GIVE CONSISTENCY TO BABY FOODS . IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT A WATER CONTENT IN EXCESS OF 6% CANNOT BE TOLERATED WHERE CASEINATES INTENDED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION ARE STORED INASMUCH AS IT CONTRIBUTES TO RAPID DETERIORATION OF THE TASTE OF THE CASEINATES , THEREBY PREVENTING THEIR USE IN FOODSTUFFS .
14 ALTHOUGH IT DOES NOT CHALLENGE THAT FINDING , THE SOCIETE MAINTAINS THAT EVEN IF THE MAXIMUM WATER CONTENT IS EXCEEDED , THAT FACT HAS NO BEARING ON THE USE OF THE PRODUCT , EVEN IN FOODSTUFFS . IT ARGUES THAT CASEINATES WHICH ARE TO BE USED IN FOODSTUFFS ARE NEVER INTENDED TO BE STORED FOR LONG PERIODS , AS IS SHOWN BY THE FACT THAT THE CASEINATES WHICH GAVE RISE TO THIS DISPUTE WERE SOLD IN THE DAYS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THEIR MANUFACTURE . ACCORDING TO THE PLAINTIFF , THE COMMISSION ' S ARGUMENT IS THEREFORE UNFOUNDED INASMUCH AS IT DISREGARDS THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THAT PRODUCT IS MARKETED .
15 THAT ARGUMENT WOULD BE RELEVANT ONLY IF CASEINATES FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION WERE ALWAYS SOLD ALMOST AS SOON AS THEY HAD BEEN MANUFACTURED AND WERE NEVER STORED FOR MORE