ORDER TO ESTABLISH WHETHER A PROVISION OF COMMUNITY LAW IS CONSONANT WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY IT IS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH , IN THE FIRST PLACE , WHETHER THE MEANS IT EMPLOYS TO ACHIEVE ITS AIM CORRESPOND TO THE IMPORTANCE OF THE AIM AND , IN THE SECOND PLACE , WHETHER THEY ARE NECESSARY FOR ITS ACHIEVEMENT .
9 THE PROVISIONS WHICH REQUIRE FORFEITURE OF THE SECURITY IN FULL WHEN THE PROCESSING PERIOD IS EXCEEDED SEEK TO PREVENT TENDERERS WHO ACQUIRE BUTTER AT A REDUCED PRICE FROM ACCUMULATING STOCKS FOR SPECULATIVE PURPOSES .
10 IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE PRICE OF BUTTER SOLD BY INTERVENTION AGENCIES IS DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF THE PRICE OF COMPETING VEGETABLE FATS AND THAT THE PRICE OF THE LATTER VARIES ACCORDING TO FLUCTUATIONS ON THE WORLD MARKETS , INCREASES IN THE PURCHASE PRICE OF BUTTER SOLD AT A REDUCED PRICE ARE FORESEEABLE SOME TIME IN ADVANCE .
11 IF NO PROCESSING PERIOD WERE IMPOSED OR IF IT COULD BE EXTENDED FOR RELATIVELY LONG PERIODS , THE SUCCESSFUL TENDERER MIGHT BE TEMPTED TO BUY LARGE QUANTITIES OF BUTTER IN ORDER TO USE IT IN CONDITIONS OTHER THAN THOSE ENVISAGED BY THE COMMUNITY LEGISLATION , IN PARTICULAR IN ORDER TO CREATE STOCKS WHICH WOULD ENABLE HIM TO AVOID THE EFFECT OF A SUBSEQUENT INCREASE IN THE PURCHASE PRICE .
12 SUCH SPECULATION WOULD CONFLICT WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE SALE OF BUTTER AT A REDUCED PRICE , WHICH IS TO REMOVE SURPLUS BUTTER FROM THE MARKET BY PROMOTING ITS USE AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR OTHER FATS IN THE PREPARATION OF PASTRY PRODUCTS AND ICE-CREAM . IT WOULD BE AN INCENTIVE FOR THE BUYERS WITH THE MOST PURCHASING POWER TO MONOPOLIZE PURCHASES , WITH THE RESULT THAT A VERY LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE BUTTER SOLD IN THAT WAY WOULD NOT BE PROCESSED , BUT WOULD BE USED TO ACCUMULATE STOCKS WHICH WOULD BE PARTLY FINANCED BY THE COMMUNITY BUDGET OUTSIDE THE FRAMEWORK OF THE REGULATIONS IN QUESTION .
13 IT MUST THEREFORE BE CONCLUDED THAT PREVENTING SPECULATION IS AN AIM OF FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE TO THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE SYSTEM ESTABLISHED BY REGULATIONS NOS 1259/72 AND 232/75 .
14 THE REQUIREMENT OF STRICT OBSERVANCE OF THE PROCESSING PERIOD IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT THAT AIM IS ACHIEVED MAY NOT BE DISPUTED BY MAINTAINING , AS FROMANCAIS HAS DONE , THAT BY OCCASIONALLY ALTERING THE LENGTH OF THE PERIOD THE COMMISSION HAS ITSELF SHOWN THAT NO CONNECTION EXISTS BETWEEN THE LENGTH OF THE PROCESSING PERIOD AND THE POSSIBILITY OF SPECULATION .
15 IT IS TRUE THAT THE PROCESSING PERIOD FIXED BY REGULATION NO 1259/72 WAS EXTENDED FIRST BY REGULATION NO 232/75 AND THEN , A FEW YEARS LATER , BY REGULATION NO 262/78 , WHICH EXTENDED IT TO EIGHT MONTHS FROM THE LAST DAY FOR THE SUBMISSION OF TENDERS . HOWEVER , SUCH ALTERATIONS IN NO WAY ESTABLISH THAT THE COMMISSION CONSIDERED THAT OBSERVANCE OF THE PROCESSING TIME-LIMIT WAS UNIMPORTANT .
16