WERE SUBSEQUENTLY TO BE MARKETED IN A PACKAGE ALSO CONTAINING ONE PACKET OF OPEN-MARKET BUTTER OF THE SAME WEIGHT, AND THE PRICE OF THE PACKETS THUS SOLD TOGETHER WAS NOT TO EXCEED THE PRICE CHARGEABLE FOR 250 GRAMS OF OPEN-MARKET BUTTER DURING THE MARKETING PERIOD . TO THAT END, THE FEDERAL OFFICE WAS TO MAKE AVAILABLE FREE OF CHARGE 900 TONNES OF BUTTER FROM PUBLIC STOCKS TO CERTAIN COMMERCIAL UNDERTAKINGS WHICH IT WAS TO SELECT AND WHICH WERE TO PLEDGE THEMSELVES BY CONTRACT TO PACKAGE THE BUTTER COVERED BY THE OPERATION AND TO SELL IT THROUGH RETAIL OUTLETS .
5 THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS, WHO SUPPLY A SUBSTANTIAL PROPORTION OF THE MARGARINE SOLD ON THE WEST BERLIN MARKET, CONSIDERED THAT THE OPERATION IN QUESTION WAS LIKELY TO RESULT IN A SHARP DECREASE IN SALES OF MARGARINE, AS BUTTER AND MARGARINE ARE PRODUCTS THAT ARE RELATIVELY EASY TO SUBSTITUTE FOR ONE ANOTHER . IN ORDER TO PREVENT THE OPERATION FROM BEING SET IN MOTION, THEY EACH INSTITUTED INTERLOCUTORY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE VERWALTUNGSGERICHT FRANKFURT AM MAIN IN WHICH THEY SOUGHT AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE FEDERAL OFFICE FROM CARRYING OUT THE CONTESTED OPERATION . BY ORDERS OF 20 MARCH 1985, THE VERWALTUNGSGERICHT UPHELD THE APPLICANTS' CLAIMS . WHEN THE APPEAL LODGED BY THE FEDERAL OFFICE CAME BEFORE IT, THE HESSISCHER VERWALTUNGSGERICHTSHOF (( HIGHER ADMINISTRATIVE COURT, HESSEN )) CONCLUDED THAT THE DISPUTES FELL WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE CIVIL COURTS AS THE FEDERAL OFFICE WAS IMPLEMENTING ONLY MEASURES GOVERNED BY PRIVATE LAW IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THE OPERATION, AND IT THEREFORE QUASHED THOSE ORDERS BY JUDGMENTS OF 11 APRIL 1985 . THE OPERATION WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CARRIED OUT AS FROM 6 MAY 1985 .
6 IN THE ACTIONS WHICH WERE INSTITUTED BEFORE IT ON 28 MARCH 1985, THE VERWALTUNGSGERICHT REFERRED TO THE COURT, BY ORDERS OF 15 APRIL 1985, EIGHT QUESTIONS FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING .
7 THE FIRST AND SECOND QUESTIONS RELATE TO THE EXISTENCE OF LEGAL REMEDIES AVAILABLE CONCURRENTLY UNDER NATIONAL LAW AND COMMUNITY LAW . THE THIRD QUESTION RELATES TO THE PROTECTION WHICH CERTAIN GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY LAW CONFER ON UNDERTAKINGS AGAINST DISADVANTAGES RESULTING FROM COMMUNITY MEASURES WHICH IMPROVE THE COMPETITIVE POSITION OF THEIR COMPETITORS . THE FOURTH QUESTION RELATES TO THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE DECISION OF 25 FEBRUARY 1985 WITH THE AIMS OF ARTICLE 39 OF THE EEC TREATY . IN THE FIFTH QUESTION, THE NATIONAL COURT SEEKS TO ASCERTAIN IN WHAT MANNER THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES REFERRED TO IN THE THIRD QUESTION MAY BE RESTRICTED . IN THE SIXTH QUESTION, THE NATIONAL COURT ASKS WHETHER ARTICLE 4 OF COUNCIL REGULATION NO 1079/77 COVERS THE DECISION OF 25 FEBRUARY 1985 . THE SEVENTH QUESTION IS DESIGNED TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER ARTICLE 4 OF THAT REGULATION IS SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC . FINALLY, THE EIGHTH QUESTION RELATES TO THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE DECISION OF 25 FEBRUARY 1985 WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY .
8 REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE REPORT FOR THE HEARING FOR THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE FULL TEXT