TO PROOF ARE COMPLIED WITH AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT , AID PAID IN DISREGARD OF THAT CONDITION IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH COMMUNITY LAW AND THE RELATED EXPENDITURE CANNOT , THEREFORE , IN PRINCIPLE BE CHARGED TO THE EAGGF WHEN THE ACCOUNTS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN QUESTION ARE DISCHARGED , WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY POSSIBILITY ON THE PART OF THE COMMISSION TO TAKE ACCOUNT , DURING ANOTHER FINANCIAL YEAR , OF THE SUBSEQUENT PRODUCTION OF THE REQUISITE PROOF .
11IT FOLLOWS THAT THE RECTIFICATION OF THE FORMAL REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO PROOF FOLLOWING PAYMENT OF THE AID BY THE COMPETENT NATIONAL AGENCY IS NOT SUCH AS TO INVALIDATE THE COMMISSION ' S REFUSAL TO CHARGE THE EXPENDITURE TO THE EAGGF .
12IT IS FURTHER NECESSARY TO EXAMINE THE APPLICANT GOVERNMENT ' S ARGUMENT THAT THE ANOMALIES ARE MERELY SUBSIDIARY AND SHOULD NOT THEREFORE BE RELIED ON TO REFUSE TO ALLOW COMMUNITY FINANCING OF THE AID GRANTED .
13IN THIS RESPECT IT SHOULD BE OBSERVED THAT WHATEVER THE IMPORTANCE IN COMMUNITY LAW OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ESSENTIAL AND SUBSIDIARY ADMINISTRATIVE FORMALITIES THE DISTINCTION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PROOF REQUIRED IN THIS CASE .
14THE COMMUNITY RULES IN THIS FIELD ARE DRAWN UP IN TERMS WHICH DO NOT GIVE THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES THE OPTION OF ACCEPTING ANY OTHER PROOF THAT THE GOODS HAVE BEEN PLACED UNDER CONTROL IN THE IMPORTING COUNTRY THAN THE FORMAL PROOF PROVIDED BY THE CONTROL COPY OF THE TRANSIT DOCUMENT CORRECTLY COMPLETED AND STAMPED .
15AS THE OBJECTIVE OF THE REGULATORY PROVISIONS IN QUESTION IS TO EXCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF DOUBLE PAYMENT AND THE POSSIBILITY OF THE GOODS BEING RETURNED TO ORDINARY COMMERCIAL CHANNELS , THE FORMALITIES RELATING TO PROOF MUST BE STRICTLY ADHERED TO FOR THAT PURPOSE , AND IN PARTICULAR TO FORESTALL ANY FRAUDULENT PRACTICE INTENDED TO EVADE THE SUPERVISORY MEASURES .
16WITHOUT GOING INTO A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE ANOMALIES NOTED BY THE COMMISSION IT MAY BE STATED THAT THEY ALL INVOLVE A DISREGARD OF THE STRICT REQUIREMENTS AS TO PROOF LAID DOWN BY COMMUNITY RULES .
17IT MUST THEREFORE BE CONCLUDED THAT THE COMMISSION ' S REFUSAL TO CHARGE THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION TO THE EAGGF IS NOT UNLAWFUL .
AIDS FOR THE DISTILLATION OF WINE
18THE APPLICANT GOVERNMENT COMPLAINS THAT THE COMMISSION REFUSED TO CHARGE TO THE EAGGF FOR THE 1972 FINANCIAL YEAR THE SUM OF FF 72 590 447.90 PAID BY THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES AS AID FOR THE DISTILLATION OF WINE ON THE GROUND THAT THAT EXPENDITURE WAS NOT INCURRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RELEVANT COMMUNITY RULES .
19ARTICLE 7 OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 816/70 OF THE COUNCIL OF 28 APRIL 1970 LAYING DOWN ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS FOR THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN WINE ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1970 ( I ), P . 234 ) PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE GRANTING OF AID TO PRIVATE STORAGE OF TABLE WINES ALONE IS UNLIKELY TO BE EFFECTIVE IN RESTORING PRICE LEVELS MEASURES MAY BE ADOPTED FOR