REACHED THE COURT ON 8 JUNE 1976 , THE VERWALTUNGSGERICHT HAMBURG HAS REFERRED TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY A QUESTION ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION NO 802/68 OF THE COUNCIL OF 27 JUNE 1968 ON THE COMMON DEFINITION OF THE CONCEPT OF THE ORIGIN OF GOODS ( OJ ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION , 1968 , P . 165 ).
MORE PARTICULARLY , THE NATIONAL COURT ASKS THE COURT OF JUSTICE TO SAY WHETHER UNTREATED CASEIN OBTAINED IN A THIRD COUNTRY , WHICH HAS BEEN RENDERED FIT FOR USE BY BEING GROUND UP IN A MEMBER STATE OF THE EEC IN THE WAY DESCRIBED BY THE GESELLSCHAFT FUR UBERSEEHANDEL IS TO BE REGARDED AS ORIGINATING IN THAT MEMBER STATE ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 802/68 OF THE COUNCIL .
2 THE QUESTION HAS ARISEN IN A DISPUTE CONCERNING THE REFUSAL OF THE HANDELSKAMMER , HAMBURG , TO ISSUE TO THE GESELLSCHAFT FUR UBERSEEHANDEL CERTIFICATES STATING FOR THE PURPOSES OF REGULATION NO 802/68 THAT THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY IS THE COUNTRY OF ORIGIN OF THE CASEIN TREATED BY THE SAID UNDERTAKING .
IT APPEARS FROM THE FILE IN THE MAIN ACTION THAT IN THE ESTABLISHMENTS OF THE GESELLSCHAFT FUR UBERSEEHANDEL , RAW CASEIN IS CLEANED , GROUND TO VARIOUS DEGREES OF FINENESS , GRADED AND THEN APPROPRIATELY PACKAGED .
THE HANDELSKAMMER EXPLAINED AS THE REASON FOR ITS REFUSAL THAT THE CLEANING , GRINDING , GRADING AND PACKING OF THE RAW CASEIN DID NOT CONSTITUTE ACTIVITIES CONFERRING A PARTICULAR ORIGIN ON THE PRODUCT , ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION NO 802/68 OF THE COUNCIL OF 27 JUNE 1968 .
3 ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION NO 802/68 PROVIDES :
' A PRODUCT IN THE PRODUCTION OF WHICH TWO OR MORE COUNTRIES WERE CONCERNED SHALL BE REGARDED AS ORIGINATING IN THE COUNTRY IN WHICH THE LAST SUBSTANTIAL PROCESS OR OPERATION THAT IS ECONOMICALLY JUSTIFIED WAS PERFORMED , HAVING BEEN CARRIED OUT IN AN UNDERTAKING EQUIPPED FOR THE PURPOSE , AND RESULTING IN THE MANUFACTURE OF A NEW PRODUCT OR REPRESENTING AN IMPORTANT STAGE OF MANUFACTURE . '
IT APPEARS FROM THE ORDER FOR REFERENCE THAT IT IS NOT DENIED THAT , IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAID PROVISION , THE PROCESS OR OPERATION TO WHICH THE RAW CASEIN IS SUBJECTED IN THIS CASE CONSTITUTES AN ACTIVITY ' CARRIED OUT IN AN UNDERTAKING EQUIPPED FOR THE PURPOSE ' , AND THAT IT IS ' ECONOMICALLY JUSTIFIED ' BECAUSE IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE INDUSTRIAL USE OF THE PRODUCT .
THUS , THE DISPUTE IS CONCERNED IN ESSENCE WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER THE SAID ACTIVITY CONSTITUTES A ' SUBSTANTIAL ' PROCESS OR OPERATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION NO 802/68 , RESULTING IN ' THE MANUFACTURE OF A NEW PRODUCT ' OR REPRESENTING ' AN IMPORTANT STAGE OF MANUFACTURE ' .
IT IS THEREFORE IN RESPECT OF THIS QUESTION THAT AN ANSWER SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE