ONLY THE PROCESS KNOWN AS THE "BRABENDER METHOD", ACCORDING TO WHICH THE MAXIMUM VISCOSITY MUST BE REACHED AT A TEMPERATURE OF NOT LESS THAN 63*C, IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE OBJECTIVES PURSUED BY THE RELEVANT COMMUNITY RULES .
17 FURTHERMORE, THAT METHOD CORRESPONDS TO THAT ADOPTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR CEREAL CHEMISTRY ON 10 MARCH 1976, A FEW MONTHS PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF COMMISSION REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1833/76 OF 28 JULY 1976 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1976, L*203, P . 28 ); THE FIRST RECITAL IN THE PREAMBLE TO THAT REGULATION STATED THAT SINCE "THE CRITERIA AS TO QUALITY REQUIRED FOR GRANTING THE SPECIAL INCREASE NO LONGER CORRESPOND TO PRESENT COMMERCIAL PRACTICES", IT WAS NECESSARY TO AMEND THE RULES IN FORCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MARKET PRACTICES . TO THAT END, THE COMMISSION ADOPTED THE METHOD REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 6 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 1570/77 .
18 IT IS THUS APPARENT THAT THE INTRODUCTION OF THE TEMPERATURE FACTOR BY REGULATION NO 1833/76 WOULD BE MEANINGLESS UNLESS THERE WAS A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEMPERATURE AND MAXIMUM VISCOSITY . NO METHOD WHICH FAILS TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THAT RELATIONSHIP IS KNOWN TO SCIENCE AND SUCH A METHOD WOULD NOT ADD ANYTHING TO THE PREVIOUS SITUATION WITH A VIEW TO ENSURING THE ATTAINMENT OF THE OBJECTIVES PURSUED BY THE NEW RULES .
19 EVEN IF IT MAY BE ACCEPTED THAT THE WORDING OF ARTICLE 6 OF REGULATION NO 1570/77 IS UNCLEAR, A PRUDENT TRADER CANNOT DISREGARD THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH HAVE JUST BEEN MENTIONED AND MUST INTERPRET THE PROVISION IN QUESTION AS REFERRING TO THE BRABENDER METHOD .
20 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION MUST BE THAT THE EXPRESSION "HARDENING TEMPERATURE" IN THE FIFTH INDENT OF ARTICLE 6 ( 1 ) OF COMMISSION REGULATION NO 1570/77 OF 11 JULY 1977 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS REFERRING TO THE TEMPERATURE OF AT LEAST 63*C WHICH IS REACHED AT THE TIME OF MAXIMUM VISCOSITY OF THE DOUGH .
SECOND QUESTION
21 IN VIEW OF THE ANSWER GIVEN TO THE FIRST QUESTION, THE SECOND QUESTION NO LONGER HAS ANY PURPOSE .
THIRD AND FOURTH QUESTIONS
22 THE THIRD AND FOURTH QUESTIONS ARE CONCERNED WITH THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE RELEVANT RULES OF COMMUNITY LAW MAY BE CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL TREATMENT .
23 IN THAT REGARD, IT MUST BE POINTED OUT THAT THE COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY IS ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY LAW AND THAT THIS PRINCIPLE REQUIRES THAT SIMILAR SITUATIONS SHALL NOT BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY UNLESS DIFFERENTIATION IS OBJECTIVELY JUSTIFIED .
24 RAIFFEISEN CONTENDS THAT, ACCORDING TO THE ABERHAM LABORATORY REPORT, THE RESULTS OF THE BAKING TESTS AND ANALYSES CARRIED OUT SHOW THAT RYE FOR WHICH THE NUMBER OF UNITS ON THE AMYLOGRAM CURVE IS 470 TO 610 AT A TEMPERATURE OF 61*C MUST BE REGARDED AS BEING OF THE SAME QUALITY AS RYE FOR WHICH THE NUMBER OF UNITS AT A HARDENING TEMPERATURE OF AT LEAST 63*C IS NOT