NO 563/76 OR REGULATION NO 677/76 LAYING DOWN DETAILED RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF REGULATION NO 563/76, AS THEY WERE APPLIED BEFORE REGULATION NO 563/76 WAS DECLARED INVALID, CONTAIN PROVISIONS AFFECTING THE REFUND OF SUMS RECEIVED ON THE BASIS OF THE ANNULLED DEMAND .
15 IT SHOULD BE OBSERVED FIRST OF ALL THAT REGULATION NO 677/76 ASSUMES THAT REGULATION NO 563/76 IS VALID AND IN CONSEQUENCE SIMPLY SETS OUT THE CONDITIONS ON WHICH SECURITY VALIDLY LODGED SHOULD BE RELEASED . IT IS NOT THEREFORE POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE ON THE BASIS OF REGULATION NO 677/76 WHETHER SECURITY LODGED ON THE BASIS OF REGULATION NO 563/76 SHOULD BE RELEASED IN THE EVENT OF THE LATTER BEING DECLARED INVALID .
16 ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION NO 563/76 PROVIDES EXPRESSLY THAT "IN THE CASE OF CONTRACTS CONCLUDED BEFORE THE DATE OF ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THIS REGULATION, THE SUCCESSIVE BUYERS OF PRODUCTS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLES 2 AND 3, OR OF PROTEIN PRODUCTS PROCESSED THEREFROM, SHALL BEAR THE BURDEN OF THE COSTS ARISING UNDER THE ARRANGEMENTS LAID DOWN IN THIS REGULATION ." AS THE COURT HAS ALREADY HELD IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 13 MAY 1981, THAT PROVISION IMPLIES A UNILATERAL AMENDMENT IF NEED BE OF COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS PREVIOUSLY ENTERED INTO IN ORDER, AS THE FIFTH RECITAL TO THE REGULATION INDICATES, EQUITABLY TO SHARE THE BURDEN OF THE COMPULSORY PURCHASE OF SKIMMED-MILK POWDER AMONG ALL THE TRADERS . IT FOLLOWS THAT TRADERS SUBJECT TO THE OBLIGATION TO PURCHASE SKIMMED-MILK POWDER AND FOR THAT REASON EXPOSED TO THE RISK OF LOSING THEIR SECURITY SHOULD NOT SUFFER ANY LOSS OWING TO THE CHARGE IMPOSED BECAUSE IN THE CASE OF CONTRACTS PRIOR TO THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE REGULATION THE CHARGE WAS AUTOMATICALLY PASSED ON TO THE SUCCESSIVE BUYERS . THAT SYSTEM IMPLIED THAT IN THE CASE OF CONTRACTS MADE AFTER THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE REGULATION THE SAME RESULT WAS ACHIEVED BY THE OPERATION OF THE MARKET AND FREEDOM OF CONTRACT . AS THE AMOUNT OF THE SECURITIES TO BE PROVIDED BROADLY CORRESPONDED TO THE BURDEN ARISING FROM THE OBLIGATION TO PURCHASE, THE FINANCIAL EFFECT OF THEIR LOSS WAS, IN THE CASE OF TRADERS ELECTING TO FOREGO THE SECURITY, ITSELF EQUAL TO THAT TO WHICH THE PERFORMANCE OF THE OBLIGATION TO PURCHASE WOULD HAVE LED IN THEIR CASE .
17 CONSEQUENTLY, IN THE CASE OF CONTRACTS CONCLUDED BEFORE THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF REGULATION NO 563/76 THERE IS A RULE OF COMMUNITY LAW RESULTING FROM ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION NO 563/76 TO THE EFFECT THAT THERE IS NO RIGHT TO THE RELEASE OF SECURITY LODGED ON THE BASIS OF THAT REGULATION .
18 ON THE OTHER HAND, IN THE CASE OF CONTRACTS CONCLUDED AFTER THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF REGULATION NO 563/76 PROVISIONS OF NATIONAL LAW WHICH ALLOW A TRADER WHO HAS DECIDED NOT TO PASS ON THE AMOUNT OF THE SECURITY BUT HAS CHALLENGED THE DEMAND FOR THE PROVISION OF SECURITY TO CLAIM ITS REPAYMENT ARE NOT CONTRARY TO ANY RULE OF COMMUNITY LAW