, IN PARTICULAR IN THE SENSE THAT STARCH CAN BE SUBSTITUTED FOR QUELLMEHL IN THE SPECIFIC USE TO WHICH THE LATTER PRODUCT IS TRADITIONALLY PUT .
IN THIS CONNEXION IT MUST FIRST BE NOTED THAT THE COMMUNITY REGULATIONS WERE , UNTIL 1974 , BASED ON THE ASSERTION THAT SUCH SUBSTITUTION WAS POSSIBLE .
HOWEVER , THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE MAIN ACTIONS ON THE ONE HAND , AND THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION ON THE OTHER ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF THAT SITUATION .
THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE MAIN ACTIONS CONTEND THAT THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR SUBSTITUTION ARE THE SAME AS PREVIOUSLY , WITH THE RESULT THAT , SINCE THE ABOLITION OF THE REFUND FOR QUELLMEHL , TRADE IN THE LATTER HAS FALLEN OFF IN FAVOUR OF STARCH .
WHILE THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION HAVE GIVEN DETAILED INFORMATION ON THE MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION , THEY HAVE PRODUCED NO NEW TECHNICAL OR ECONOMIC DATA WHICH APPRECIABLY CHANGE THE PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT OF THE POSITION .
IT HAS NOT THEREFORE BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT , SO FAR AS THE COMMUNITY SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION REFUNDS IS CONCERNED , QUELLMEHL AND STARCH ARE NO LONGER IN COMPARABLE SITUATIONS .
CONSEQUENTLY , THESE PRODUCTS MUST BE TREATED IN THE SAME MANNER UNLESS DIFFERENTIATION IS OBJECTIVELY JUSTIFIED .
9 WITH REGARD TO THIS LATTER ASPECT , THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION CONTEND THAT THE ABOLITION OF THE REFUND FOR QUELLMEHL IS JUSTIFIED BY THE FACT THAT QUELLMEHL HAS BEEN TO A GREAT EXTENT DIVERTED FROM ITS SPECIFIC USE IN FOOD FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION IN ORDER TO BE SOLD AS ANIMAL FEED .
ALTHOUGH THIS GROUND , THE CORRECTNESS OF WHICH IS MOREOVER DISPUTED BY THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE MAIN ACTIONS , IS REFERRED TO IN THE STATEMENT WHICH ACCOMPANIED THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND LATER ADOPTED AS REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1125/74 , IT DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE RECITALS TO THAT REGULATION .
DURING THE PROCEEDINGS , THE COMMISSION WAS REQUESTED BY THE COURT TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT QUELLMEHL HAD BEEN USED FOR ANIMAL FEED BUT IT WAS UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH THIS REQUEST .
EVEN IF ADEQUATE PROOF HAD BEEN FORTHCOMING THAT IT WAS PUT TO SUCH USE AND THAT SUBSIDIZED STARCH HAD NOT BEEN PUT TO SIMILAR USE THIS COULD HAVE JUSTIFIED THE ABOLITION OF THE REFUND ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE QUANTITIES PUT TO SUCH USE AND NOT IN RESPECT OF THE QUANTITIES OF THE PRODUCTS USED IN FOOD FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION .
10 IN VIEW IN PARTICULAR OF THE LENGTH OF TIME DURING WHICH THE TWO PRODUCTS WERE GIVEN EQUALITY OF TREATMENT WITH REGARD TO PRODUCTION REFUNDS , IT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THERE ARE OBJECTIVE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH COULD HAVE JUSTIFIED ALTERING THE PREVIOUS SYSTEM AS WAS DONE BY REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1125/74 , WHICH PUT AN END TO THIS EQUALITY OF TREATMENT .
IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FOREGOING THAT THE ABOLITION ,