OR A CHANGE IN THE CONDITIONS OF TRADE WITH THIRD COUNTRIES .
THUS THE COMMISSION ENJOYS A SIGNIFICANT FREEDOM OF EVALUATION BOTH AS REGARDS THE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OF POSSIBLE FACTORS OF DISTURBANCE AND IN CHOOSING THE MEANS FOR DEALING WITH THEM, WHICH MUST BE EXERCISED IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE ECONOMIC POLICY LAID DOWN BY REGULATION NO 120/67 IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY .
9 WHEN EXAMINING THE LAWFULNESS OF THE EXERCISE OF SUCH FREEDOM, THE COURTS CANNOT SUBSTITUTE THEIR OWN EVALUATION OF THE MATTER FOR THAT OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, BUT MUST RESTRICT THEMSELVES TO EXAMINING WHETHER THE EVALUATION OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY CONTAINS A PATENT ERROR OR CONSTITUTES A MISUSE OF POWER .
THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN ACTION HAVE REVEALED NO INDICATION OF SUCH AN ERROR OR SUCH A MISUSE OF POWER . IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT AT THE TIME OF THE MEASURE IN QUESTION THERE EXISTED ON THE MARKET A CERTAIN TENSION AS REGARDS THE SUPPLY OF CEREALS OF BREAD-MAKING QUALITY BELONGING TO THE TYPE OF GOODS THE DENATURING OF WHICH GAVE RISE TO PAYMENT OF AN INCREASED PREMIUM UNDER ARTICLE 4 ( 2 ) AND ANNEX II OF REGULATION NO 1403/69 . IN THE CHOICE OF MEANS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEALING WITH THE SITUATION, THE COMMISSION WAS ENTITLED TO PREFER THE DISCONTINUANCE OF AN INCREASE IN THE PREMIUM RATHER THAN A MODIFICATION OF THE AMOUNT OF THE BASIC PREMIUM OR, AS WAS SUGGESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN ACTION, FAVOURING THE IMPORTATION OF GOODS OF THE SAME TYPE FROM THIRD COUNTRIES .
10 ACCORDINGLY, IT APPEARS THAT THE VALIDITY OF REGULATION NO 849/70 CANNOT BE QUESTIONED FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE CRITERION OF 'LIKELIHOOD OF DISTURBANCE' TO WHICH REGULATION NO 644/68 SUBORDINATED THE MODIFICATION OF THE AMOUNT OF THE DENATURING PREMIUMS DURING THE COURSE OF THE CEREAL MARKETING YEAR .
ON THE SECOND QUESTION ( THE EFFECT OF THE DISCONTINUANCE OF THE INCREASE OF PREMIUMS ON PENDING CONTRACTS )
11 AS A SUBSIDIARY QUESTION THE COURT WAS ASKED WHETHER ARTICLES 1 AND 2 OF REGULATION NO 849/70 WERE IN ANY CASE INVALID IN SO FAR AS THEY LAID DOWN THAT THE INCREASED DENATURING PREMIUM SHOULD BE DISCONTINUED EVEN IN RESPECT OF COMMON WHEAT WITH A SPECIFIC WEIGHT EXCEEDING 77 KG/HL WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN PURCHASED BY THE DENATURER BEFORE THAT REGULATION CAME INTO FORCE .
12 THE REGULATION IN QUESTION IS DATED 11 MAY 1970, IT WAS PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF 12 MAY 1970, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 3 THEREOF, IT CAME INTO FORCE ON THE THIRD DAY FOLLOWING ITS PUBLICATION AND UNDER ARTICLE 1 THE DISCONTINUANCE OF THE INCREASE IN PREMIUM CAME INTO FORCE ON 1 JUNE 1970 . ACCORDINGLY, IT FALLS TO BE EXAMINED WHETHER THE PERIOD INTERVENING BETWEEN PUBLICATION OF THE REGULATION AND THE DISCONTINUANCE OF THE PREMIUM WAS SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW AN ENTERPRISE UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS TO COMPLETE THE DENATURING OPERATIONS WHICH