OF SUCH FREEDOM, THE COURTS CANNOT SUBSTITUTE THEIR OWN EVALUATION OF THE MATTER FOR THAT OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, BUT MUST RESTRICT THEMSELVES TO EXAMINING WHETHER THE EVALUATION OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY CONTAINS A PATENT ERROR OR CONSTITUTES A MISUSE OF POWERS .
5 THE DOUBTS RAISED BY THE NATIONAL COURT REVEAL NO EVIDENCE OF SUCH AN ERROR OR MISUSE OF POWERS . IT IS RIGHT TO OBSERVE MORE PARTICULARLY IN THIS RESPECT THAT IN THE GROUNDS OF THE MEASURES WHICH IT HAS TAKEN, THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN ABLE TO REFER PERTINENTLY TO THE MOVEMENT OF THE WORLD CEREAL MARKET, ON WHICH THE COMMUNITY MARKET IS LARGELY DEPENDENT, HAVING REGARD TO THE FREEDOM OF EXTERNAL TRADE . IN THE GROUNDS OF THE REGULATIONS CHALLENGED THE COMMISSION HAS REFERRED TO A GROWING PRESSURE ON THE WORLD MARKET, PARTICULARLY MARKED AT THE TIME OF REGULATION NO 175/74 . THIS PRESSURE, ACCORDING TO THE PREAMBLE TO REGULATION NO 175/74, CAUSED GROWING DIFFICULTIES OF SUPPLY AND A TENDENCY TO INCREASED PRICES . THIS MOVEMENT INVOLVED THE DISAPPEARANCE OF IMPORT LEVIES AND REQUIRED EVEN THE INTRODUCTION OF AN EXPORT LEVY . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT COULD APPEAR AS PARTICULARLY CONTRA-INDICATED ARTIFICIALLY TO CAUSE QUANTITIES OF WHEAT TO MOVE INTO THE MARKET IN FEED GRAINS AT A TIME WHEN, BECAUSE OF THE INCREASED DEMAND, THE FEED GRAIN MARKET OFFERED MORE FAVOURABLE SALES POSSIBILITIES FOR TRUE FEED GRAINS, IN PARTICULAR BARLEX, AS IS MENTIONED IN THE GROUNDS OF THE REGULATIONS CHALLENGED .
6 THE EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONS RAISED HAS THUS NOT REVEALED ANY FACTOR CAPABLE OF AFFECTING THE VALIDITY OF REGULATIONS NOS 2859/73 AND 175/74 .
QUESTIONS 2 AND 4 ( DETERMINATION OF THE SCOPE IN POINT OF TIME OF REGULATIONS NOS 2859/73 AND 175/74 )
7 THE SECOND QUESTION ASKS WHETHER REGULATION NO 2859/73 APPLIES ALSO TO DENATURING WHICH HAS BEEN NOTIFIED TO THE INTERVENTION AGENCY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BEFORE 1 NOVEMBER 1973 - THE DATE ON WHICH, UNDER ARTICLE 1 OF THE REGULATION, THE ALTERATION OF THE DENATURING PREMIUM TOOK EFFECT - BUT IN RESPECT OF WHICH MIXING WAS NOT DONE UNTIL A LATER DATE, ALBEIT WITHIN THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED FOR THIS PURPOSE . THE SAME QUESTION IS RAISED IN RESPECT OF REGULATION NO 175/74 AS REGARDS DENATURING NOTIFIED TO THE INTERVENTION AGENCY BEFORE 10 FEBRUARY 1974 - THE DATE FROM WHICH, UNDER ARTICLE 1 OF THE REGULATION, THE PREMIUM WAS ABOLISHED - BUT IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE MIXING WAS NOT DONE UNTIL A LATER DATE, ALBEIT STILL WITHIN THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED FOR THIS PURPOSE .
8 THE ORDER OF REFERENCE STRESSES IN THIS RESPECT THE FACT THAT, SINCE ALL THE ARRANGEMENTS HAD BEEN MADE BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN ACTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE DENATURING AND THE SALE OF THE DENATURED WHEAT AT THE TIME THE APPLICATION WAS MADE TO THE INTERVENTION AGENCY, THE PAYMENT OF A REDUCED PREMIUM AND THE TOTAL ABOLITION OF THE PREMIUM WOULD NO LONGER IN ANY EVENT HAVE BEEN ABLE ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVE AIMED