WAS NOT WRONG TO MAKE CLEAR IN THE SECOND RECITAL OF THE PREAMBLE TO THE CONTESTED REGULATION ITS AIM TO AVOID "UNJUSTIFIED PROFITS FOR THE OPERATORS CONCERNED ". THE ASSESSMENT OF THE COSTS OF FINANCING STORAGE ON THE BASIS OF A UNIFORM INTEREST RATE HAD THE RESULT THAT TRADERS WHO STORED THEIR BUTTER IN A COUNTRY WHERE THE REAL INTEREST RATE WAS LOWER THAN THAT UNIFORM RATE RECEIVED COMPENSATION WHICH EXCEEDED THEIR ACTUAL FINANCING COSTS . IN APPRAISING WHETHER THE COMMISSION' S REASONING WAS CORRECT IT IS IRRELEVANT WHETHER THAT OVERCOMPENSATION WAS USED BY THE TRADER TO INCREASE HIS PROFITS OR TO IMPROVE HIS COMPETITIVENESS BY REDUCING HIS SELLING PRICES .
29 FINALLY, THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS COMPLAIN THAT THE STATEMENT OF REASONS IN THE CONTESTED REGULATION IGNORED THE FACT THAT UNDERTAKINGS OPERATING IN MEMBER STATES WITH HIGH INTEREST RATES MAY STILL FINANCE THEIR STORAGE COSTS IN THE CURRENCIES OF MEMBER STATES WHERE INTEREST RATES ARE LOW .
30 AS HAS ALREADY BEEN POINTED OUT, THE ADVANTAGE THAT SUCH A PRACTICE AFFORDS THE TRADERS CONCERNED IS OFFSET BY THE RISK THAT EXCHANGE RATES MAY CHANGE TO THEIR DETRIMENT . THE COMMISSION WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO DISREGARD THAT POSSIBILITY WHEN ESTABLISHING THE SYSTEM FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF STORAGE COSTS .
31 ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, IT WOULD THEREFORE APPEAR THAT THE STATEMENT OF REASONS IN THE CONTESTED REGULATION IS NOT VITIATED BY ANY ERROR OF SUBSTANCE .
THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE CONTESTED REGULATION WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY
32 ACCORDING TO THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS, THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY HAS BEEN INFRINGED IN TWO WAYS . FIRST, REPLYING ON 31 JANUARY 1984 TO A WRITTEN QUESTION BY A MEMBER OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COMMISSION STATED THAT IT "(( DID )) NOT ENVISAGE DIFFERENTIATING AID ON THE BASIS OF INTEREST RATES CURRENT IN THE VARIOUS MEMBER STATES"; SECONDLY, IT SHOULD HAVE ADOPTED TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS FOR PURCHASE AND SALE CONTRACTS CONCLUDED BEFORE THE REGULATION CAME INTO FORCE .
33 AS REGARDS THE FIRST POINT, IT MUST BE POINTED OUT THAT ARTICLE 10 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 985/68 OF THE COUNCIL AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSION TO AMEND THE AMOUNT OF AID FOR THE PRIVATE STORAGE OF BUTTER "IF THE STATE OF THE MARKET SO REQUIRES ". IF IT FOUND THAT LARGE PRIVATE STOCKS OF BUTTER WERE ACCUMULATING IN MEMBER STATES WITH LOW INTEREST RATES, THE COMMISSION WAS ENTITLED TO ASSESS THE SITUATION IN A DIFFERENT WAY THAN SEVERAL MONTHS BEFORE . IT IS ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW ( SEE IN PARTICULAR THE JUDGMENT OF 15 JULY 1982 IN CASE 245/81 EDEKA ZENTRALE AG V FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY (( 1982 )) ECR 2745 AND THE JUDGMENT OF 28 OCTOBER 1982 IN CASE 52/81 FIRMA WERNER FAUST V COMMISSION (( 1982 )) ECR 3745 ) THAT TRADERS ARE UNABLE TO CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE A LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION THAT AN EXISTING SITUATION WHICH IS CAPABLE OF BEING ALTERED BY THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY IN THE EXERCISE OF