MAJEURE EMPLOYED IN THE REGULATION IN ISSUE MUST THEREFORE TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE SPECIAL NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIPS AT PUBLIC LAW EXISTING BETWEEN THE IMPORTERS AND THE NATIONAL ADMINISTRATION, AS WELL AS OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THAT REGULATION .
IT IS APPARENT FROM THESE OBJECTIVES, AS WELL AS FROM THE ACTUAL PROVISIONS OF THE REGULATIONS IN QUESTION, THAT THE CONCEPT OF FORCE MAJEURE IS NOT LIMITED TO CASES OF ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY .
9 THE PUBLIC INTEREST, WHICH REQUIRES AS ACCURATE A FORECASE AS POSSIBLE OF IMPORT TRENDS IN EACH MEMBER STATE AND JUSTIFIES THE DEPOSIT OF SECURITY AGAINST THE GRANT OF AUTHORIZATION TO IMPORT, MUST BE RECONCILED TO THE NECESSITY OF NOT HAMPERING TRADE BETWEEN STATES BY TOO RIGID OBLIGATIONS, A NECESSITY WHICH ALSO DERIVES FROM THE PUBLIC INTEREST .
THE THREAT OF FORFEITURE OF SECURITY IS INTENDED TO ENCOURAGE THE FULFILLMENT OF THE OBLIGATION TO IMPORT BY IMPORTERS ENJOYING THE AUTHORIZATION AND THUS TO ENSURE THE ACCURATE FORECASTING OF IMPORT TRENDS REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL INTEREST MENTIONED ABOVE .
IT FOLLOWS THAT, IN PRINCIPLE, AN IMPORTER WHO HAS EXERCISED ALL REASONABLE CARE IS RELEASED FROM THE OBLIGATION TO IMPORT WHEN EXTERNAL CIRCUMSTANCES RENDER IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO COMPLETE THE IMPORTATION WITHIN THE PERIOD OF VALIDITY .
10 THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST PART OF THE SECOND QUESTION SHOULD THEREFORE BE THAT THE LOSS OF SUCH AN IMPORT LICENCE CONSTITUTES A CASE OF FORCE MAJEURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 18 OF REGULATION NO 1373/70 WHEN SUCH LOSS OCCURS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE TITULAR HOLDER OF THE LICENCE HAS TAKEN ALL THE PRECAUTIONS WHICH COULD REASONABLY BE EXPECTED OF A PRUDENT AND DILIGENT TRADER .
WITH REGARD TO THE SECOND PART OF THE SECOND QUESTION
11 THE QUESTION IS THEN ASKED WHETHER A REASONABLY DILIGENT TRADER FULFILLS HIS DUTY OF CARE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF HIS ACTIVITY WITHIN THE COMMUNITY IF HE SENDS A LICENCE BY ORDINARY POST .
12 THIS QUESTION SEEKS TO HAVE ESTABLISHED THE STANDARD OF CARE THAT CAN REASONABLY BE EXPECTED OF A PRUDENT AND DILIGENT TRADER .
IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPRESS PROVISION OF COMMUNITY LAW, IT IS FOR THE NATIONAL COURT TO SAY WHETHER SUCH A TRADER HAS OR HAS NOT EXERCISED ALL REASONABLE CARE, BEARING IN MIND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE .
THIS IS NOT A QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION BUT ONE OF APPLICATION, RESERVED FOR THE NATIONAL COURT .
13 THE ANSWER SHOULD THEREFORE BE THAT IT IS FOR THE COMPETENT NATIONAL COURT TO DECIDE, AFTER WEIGHING ALL THE FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE TRADER WAS PLACED, WHETHER THE TITULAR HOLDER OF A LICENCE HAS ACTED AS A PRUDENT AND DILIGENT TRADER .
WITH REGARD TO THE THIRD PART OF THE SECOND QUESTION
14 FINALLY, THE QUESTION IS ASKED WHETHER A REQUEST MADE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 18 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 1373/70 MAY BE SUBMITTED AFTER THE PERIOD OF VALIDITY OF THE LICENCE HAS EXPIRED .
15 THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 18 ( 1 ) CONCERN REQUESTS