AID FOR BEEF AND VEAL ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1968 ( I ), P . 264 ). NONE OF THE PROVISIONS IN QUESTION EXPRESSLY PROVIDES FOR THE IMPOSITION OF A PENALTY , CONTRACTUAL OR OTHERWISE , DISTINCT FROM LOSS OF THE DEPOSIT , OR EXPRESSLY ALLOWS A STIPULATION TO THAT EFFECT TO BE INCLUDED IN CONTRACTS WITH TRADERS .
14 WITH REGARD TO THE SYSTEM OF DEPOSITS ESTABLISHED IN RESPECT OF IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS , THE COURT STATED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 17 DECEMBER 1970 ( CASE 11/70 INTERNATIONALE HANDELSGESELLSCHAFT V EINFUHR- UND VORRATSSTELLE FUR GETREIDE UND FUTTERMITTEL ( 1979 ) ECR 1135 ) THAT THE SYSTEM WAS INTENDED TO GUARANTEE THAT THE IMPORTS AND EXPORTS FOR WHICH LICENCES WERE REQUESTED WERE ACTUALLY EFFECTED IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES TO MAKE JUDICIOUS USE OF THE INSTRUMENTS OF INTERVENTION , SUCH AS PURCHASING , STORING AND DISTRIBUTING , FIXING EXPORT REFUNDS , APPLYING PROTECTIVE MEASURES AND CHOOSING MEASURES DESIGNED TO AVOID DEFLECTIONS OF TRADE . IT ADDED THAT THE UNDERTAKING GIVEN BY TRADERS WOULD BE INEFFECTUAL IF OBSERVANCE OF IT WERE NOT ENSURED BY APPROPRIATE MEANS AND IN THAT RESPECT THE SYSTEM OF DEPOSITS WAS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN A SYSTEM OF FINES IMPOSED RETROSPECTIVELY . FINALLY , THE COURT HELD THAT THE SYSTEM OF DEPOSITS COULD NOT BE EQUATED WITH A PENAL SANCTION , SINCE IT MERELY CONSTITUTED A GUARANTEE THAT AN UNDERTAKING VOLUNTARILY ASSUMED WOULD BE CARRIED OUT .
15 IN THE SAME WAY THE SYSTEM OF DEPOSITS ESTABLISHED IN CONNECTION WITH PRIVATE STORAGE IS INTENDED TO ENSURE THAT THE TRADER PERFORMS HIS OBLIGATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMMUNITY REGULATIONS AND THE TERMS OF THE RELEVANT CONTRACT . THAT OBJECTIVE DOES NOT SUPPORT AN INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 4 ( 3 ) OF REGULATION NO 1071/68 TO THE EFFECT THAT AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THE DEPOSIT MUST BE PAID IF THE DEPOSIT IS WRONGLY RELEASED AFTER THE PERIOD OF STORAGE HAS EXPIRED . AT THAT STAGE THE UNDERTAKING TO STORE CAN NO LONGER BE PERFORMED AND THE PAYMENT CAN NO LONGER SERVE TO GUARANTEE THAT THE OPERATION TAKES PLACE BUT WOULD SIMPLY CONSTITUTE A PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO PERFORM THE UNDERTAKING .
16 AS THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT HAS POINTED OUT , THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A PENALTY MAY REPRESENT A LACUNA IN THE DEPOSIT SYSTEM , BECAUSE A PERSON WHO OBTAINS THE RELEASE OF THE DEPOSIT BY MEANS OF FALSE STATEMENTS AVOIDS LOSING IT . THAT ARGUMENT WOULD BE CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING THE INTERPRETATION FAVOURED BY THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT AND BY THE COMMISSION IF THE PROVISIONS IN QUESTION LENT THEMSELVES TO SUCH AN INTERPRETATION , HAVING REGARD TO THEIR WORDING AND THE OBJECTIVE PURSUED . HOWEVER , IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT ON ITS OWN TO PROVIDE A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS BASIS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF A PENALTY .
17 IT FOLLOWS THAT THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST AND FOURTH QUESTIONS MUST BE THAT ARTICLE 4 OF REGULATION NO 1071/68 OF THE COMMISSION OF