BEFORE THE COURT ON 20 AUGUST 1985 .
5 REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE REPORT FOR THE HEARING FOR A MORE DETAILED ACCOUNT OF THE FACTS AND OF THE SUBMISSIONS AND ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES WHICH ARE MENTIONED OR DISCUSSED HEREINAFTER ONLY IN SO FAR AS IS NECESSARY FOR THE REASONING OF THE COURT .
ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION
6 THE UNITED KINGDOM CONTENDS IN ITS REJOINDER THAT THE COMMISSION HAS, DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS, ALTERED THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF ITS APPLICATION AS DEFINED IN THE REASONED OPINION . IN ITS REPLY, THE COMMISSION CRITICIZED THE UNITED KINGDOM FOR PROHIBITING IMPORTS WHICH SATISFIED THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 85/397/EEC OF 5 AUGUST 1985 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1985, L 226, P . 13 ) ON HEALTH AND ANIMAL-HEALTH PROBLEMS AFFECTING INTRA-COMMUNITY TRADE IN HEAT-TREATED MILK, WHEREAS THERE WAS NO REFERENCE TO THAT DIRECTIVE IN THE REASONED OPINION .
7 THAT ARGUMENT CANNOT BE UPHELD . IT IS APPARENT BOTH FROM THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT AND FROM THE ORAL ARGUMENTS PRESENTED TO IT THAT THROUGHOUT THE PRE-CONTENTIOUS PROCEDURE AND THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT THE COMMISSION' S DEFINITION OF THE INFRINGEMENT WHICH THE UNITED KINGDOM IS ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED HAS REMAINED UNCHANGED, NAMELY THAT THE PROHIBITION OF THE IMPORTATION OF PASTEURIZED MILK AND UNFROZEN PASTEURIZED CREAM WAS CONTRARY TO ARTICLE 30 OF THE TREATY AND TO THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS . ALTHOUGH, IN ITS REPLY, THE COMMISSION REFERRED TO DIRECTIVE 85/397/EEC, WHICH WAS ADOPTED AFTER THE REASONED OPINION WAS DELIVERED, IT DID SO ONLY IN RESPONSE TO AN ARGUMENT CONTAINED IN THE DEFENCE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM WHICH HAD ITSELF RELIED UPON THAT DIRECTIVE TO DRAW ATTENTION TO THE DISPARITIES BETWEEN NATIONAL RULES AND TO THE NEED FOR A COMMUNITY SYSTEM OF QUALITY CONTROL FOR MILK .
8 THE OBJECTION OF INADMISSIBILITY RAISED BY THE UNITED KINGDOM MUST THEREFORE BE REJECTED .
SUBSTANCE
9 THE COMMISSION MAINTAINS THAT THE RULES IN FORCE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM ARE CONTRARY TO ARTICLE 30 OF THE TREATY AND ARE NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER ARTICLE 36, IN SO FAR AS THE TOTAL PROHIBITION OF IMPORTS IS DISPROPORTIONATE IN RELATION TO THE HEALTH OBJECTIVES ADOPTED BY THE UNITED KINGDOM . IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN IN WHAT WAY THE LEGISLATION OF THE OTHER MEMBER STATES OFFERS ONLY INADEQUATE GUARANTEES AS TO THE QUALITY OF THE MILK . IN THE SECOND PLACE, THE UNITED KINGDOM SHOULD, RATHER THAN IMPOSING A GENERAL AND ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION, ALLOW THE IMPORTATION OF MILK FOUND TO COMPLY WITH THE UNITED KINGDOM STANDARDS . THERE IS NO REASON FOR CLAIMING THAT MILK FROM OTHER MEMBER STATES NEVER COMPLIES WITH THOSE STANDARDS . CERTAIN TESTS MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO VERIFY THIS WITHIN A SUFFICIENTLY SHORT TIME AND IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE UNITED KINGDOM TO SET UP AN ORGANIZATION CAPABLE OF CARRYING OUT THE NECESSARY CHECKS . FINALLY, THE COMMISSION
STATES THAT IT WOULD BE EXCESSIVE TO PROHIBIT, FOR REASONS