THE PART OF THE FARMER TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 4 OF THE REGULATION .
4 AS REGARDS MIXED FARMS , ARTICLE 4 ( 1 ) ( C ) OF THE REGULATION REQUIRES THE FARMER : TO FORWARD TO THE DAIRY A STATEMENT OF THE SIZE OF HIS HERD AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION FOR DELIVERY ; TO DECLARE TO THE DAIRY , BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF EACH QUARTER , ' THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CALVES LESS THAN FOUR MONTHS OLD WHICH WILL BE KEPT ON THE FARM DURING THE QUARTER IN QUESTION ' ; AND TO TAKE DELIVERY FOR EACH CALF SO DECLARED OF A MINIMUM QUANTITY OF SKIMMED MILK NOT QUALIFYING FOR SPECIAL AID EQUAL TO 6 KG PER DAY OR 180 KG PER MONTH . ARTICLE 4 ( 3 ), INSERTED BY REGULATION NO 188/83 , ADDS THAT THE SPECIAL AID IS TO BE REDUCED BY 10% FOR THE PERIOD CONCERNED ' WHERE A STATEMENT MADE TO A DAIRY OF THE SIZE OF THE HERD OR THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CALVES IS NOT FORWARDED ON TIME BUT NOT MORE THAN 10 DAYS LATE ' .
5 IT APPEARS FROM THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT THAT IN THIS CASE , ACCORDING TO THE FINDINGS MADE BY THE COMPETENT DEPARTMENTS OF THE BOARD , VARIOUS FARMERS WERE 12 OR 13 DAYS LATE IN MAKING THEIR DECLARATIONS AS TO THE SIZE OF THEIR HERD , WHILST OTHER FARMERS HAD DECLARED FEWER YOUNG CALVES THAN WERE ACTUALLY KEPT DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION .
6 NORDBUTTER CONTESTED THE DEMAND FOR REPAYMENT IN FULL OF THE SPECIAL AID OBTAINED FOR THE PERIOD CONCERNED IN RESPECT OF SKIMMED MILK SUPPLIED TO THE FARMERS IN QUESTION . IN THE FIRST PLACE IT MAINTAINED THAT IT WAS DISPROPORTIONATE TO REQUIRE THE REPAYMENT IN FULL OF THE SPECIAL AID EVEN WHERE THE FARMERS HAD MERELY FAILED TO RESPECT THE 10-DAY PERIOD LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 4 ( 3 ) OF REGULATION NO 2793/77 . SECONDLY , IT ARGUED THAT THE INTERVENTION AGENCY ' S METHOD OF CALCULATING THE ' MAXIMUM NUMBER OF CALVES LESS THAN FOUR MONTHS OLD ' WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 4 ( 1 ) ( C ) OF THAT REGULATION WAS ERRONEOUS . THE RELEVANT FIGURE WAS NOT SIMPLY THE TOTAL NUMBER OF YOUNG CALVES KEPT DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION BUT THE NUMBER OF YOUNG CALVES PRESENT ON THE DAY IN THAT PERIOD WHEN THAT NUMBER WAS AT ITS HIGHEST .
7 IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THOSE PROBLEMS THE VERWALTUNGSGERICHT FRANKFURT AM MAIN , BEFORE WHICH THE DISPUTE CAME , REFERRED THE FOLLOWING QUESTION TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING :
' ( 1 ) HOW IS THE EXPRESSION ' MAXIMUM NUMBER ' CONTAINED IN THE SECOND INDENT OF ARTICLE 4 ( 1 ) ( C ) OF COMMISSION REGULATION NO 2793/77 OF 15 DECEMBER 1977 TO BE INTERPRETED?
( 2 ) IS THE RULE EMBODIED IN ARTICLE 4 ( 3 ) OF