MOREOVER, AS APPEARS FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 7 FEBRUARY 1979 IN JOINED CASES 15 AND 16/76, CITED ABOVE, WHERE IT PROVES IMPOSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH WITH CERTAINTY THE EXTENT TO WHICH A NATIONAL MEASURE THAT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH COMMUNITY LAW HAS CAUSED AN INCREASE IN THE EXPENDITURE ENTERED UNDER A BUDGETARY ITEM OF THE EAGGF, THE COMMISSION HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO DISALLOW ALL THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION .
14 FINALLY, IT MUST BE POINTED OUT ( SEE IN PARTICULAR THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 12 JULY 1984 IN CASE 49/83 LUXEMBOURG V COMMISSION (( 1984 )) ECR 2931 ) THAT WHEN THE COMMISSION REFUSES TO CHARGE CERTAIN EXPENDITURE TO THE EAGGF ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS INCURRED AS A RESULT OF BREACHES OF COMMUNITY RULES IMPUTABLE TO A MEMBER STATE, IT IS FOR THAT STATE TO SHOW THAT THE CONDITIONS FOR OBTAINING THE FINANCING REFUSED BY THE COMMISSION ARE FULFILLED .
15 THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS APPLY WHERE, AS IN THIS CASE, THE COMMISSION, INSTEAD OF REJECTING ALL THE EXPENDITURE AFFECTED BY THE INFRINGEMENT, HAS ENDEAVOURED TO ESTABLISH THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE UNLAWFUL ACTION BY MEANS OF CALCULATIONS BASED ON AN ASSESSMENT OF WHAT THE SITUATION ON THE RELEVANT MARKET WOULD HAVE BEEN IF THE INFRINGEMENT HAD NOT OCCURRED . IN SUCH A CASE, THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THOSE CALCULATIONS ARE NOT CORRECT RESTS ON THE STATE SEEKING TO HAVE THE DISALLOWANCE ANNULLED .
16 IT MUST THEREFORE BE CONCLUDED THAT THE COMMISSION HAS SATISFIED ITS OBLIGATIONS IN THE MATTER OF PROOF ONCE IT ESTABLISHES THAT A MEMBER STATE HAS INFRINGED THE RULES OF THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETS . WHERE THE COMMISSION HAS CHOSEN TO CALCULATE THE AMOUNT OF THE EXPENDITURE CONCERNED BY THE INFRINGEMENT BY EXAMINING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE IRREGULARITY AFFECTED EAGGF EXPENDITURE, AS IS THE SITUATION IN THIS CASE, IT IS FOR THE MEMBER STATE CONCERNED TO PROVE THAT THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION WAS NOT INCREASED AS A RESULT OF THAT IRREGULARITY OR THAT IT WAS INCREASED BY AN AMOUNT LESS THAN THAT CALCULATED BY THE COMMISSION .
THE QUESTION WHETHER THE DIFFERENTIAL PRICING PRACTICES IN QUESTION ARE COMPATIBLE WITH COMMUNITY LAW AND WHETHER THEY ARE LIABLE TO ENTAIL AN INCREASE IN EAGGF EXPENDITURE
17 IN VIEW OF THE CONSIDERATIONS SET OUT ABOVE ON THE QUESTION OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF, THE FIRST POINT TO CONSIDER IS WHETHER THE COMMISSION HAS SATISFIED THE COURT THAT THE DIFFERENTIAL PRICING PRACTICES IN QUESTION ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH COMMUNITY LAW .
18 AS REGARDS THE DUAL PRICING FOR MILK, DEPENDING ON WHETHER THE RESULTANT SKIMMED MILK WAS USED FOR ANIMAL FEED OR FOR PROCESSING INTO POWDER, THE COMMISSION, AFTER POINTING OUT THAT SUCH A PRACTICE IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH COMMUNITY LAW, ARGUES THAT, IF DIFFERENT PRICES HAD NOT BEEN APPLIED, THE PRICE OF THE SKIMMED MILK USED FOR ANIMAL FEED WOULD HAVE BEEN FIXED AT A LOWER LEVEL, NAMELY THAT OF THE PRICE FOR MILK USED FOR PROCESSING INTO POWDER . THAT CHANGE