DOES NOT ALLOW THE PENALTY OF FORFEITURE OF THE SECURITY TO BE MADE COMMENSURATE WITH THE DEGREE OF NON-PERFORMANCE OF THE ABOVEMENTIONED OBLIGATIONS OR WITH THE GRAVITY OF THE INFRINGEMENT THEREOF AND CONSEQUENTLY ENTAILS FORFEITURE OF THE WHOLE SECURITY WHERE A SUCCESSFUL TENDERER HAS DELIVERED THE FULL QUANTITY COVERED BY THE TENDER BUT HAS TRANSPORTED IT ON VESSELS MORE THAN 15 YEARS OLD OR HAS FAILED TO KEEP WITHIN THE SHIPMENT PERIOD , WHEREAS , BY CONTRAST , A SUCCESSFUL TENDERER WHO , WHILST COMPLYING WITH THE OTHER DELIVERY CONDITIONS , DELIVERS ONLY HALF THE GOODS WOULD LOSE ONLY HALF THE SECURITY .
15 IN ORDER TO ANSWER THE QUESTION SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL COURT , IT IS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH , IN ACCORDANCE WITH WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW ( JUDGMENTS OF 20 FEBRUARY 1979 IN CASE 122/78 BUITONI ( 1979 ) ECR 677 ; OF 21 JUNE 1979 IN CASE 240/78 ATALANTA ( 1979 ) ECR 2137 ; OF 2 DECEMBER 1982 IN CASE 272/81 RU-MI ( 1982 ) ECR 4167 ; OF 23 FEBRUARY 1983 IN CASE 66/82 FROMANCAIS ( 1983 ) ECR 395 ; OF 17 MAY 1984 IN CASE 15/83 DENKAVIT ( 1984 ) ECR 2171 ), WHETHER THE OBLIGATIONS AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE MUST BE REGARDED AS PRINCIPAL OBLIGATIONS WHOSE OBSERVANCE IS OF FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE TO THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF A COMMUNITY SYSTEM AND WHOSE INFRINGEMENT MAY BE PUNISHED BY TOTAL FORFEITURE OF THE SECURITY , WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY , OR WHETHER THEY ARE SECONDARY OBLIGATIONS WHOSE INFRINGEMENT SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED WITH THE SAME RIGOUR AS IS APPLIED TO THE FAILURE TO FULFIL A PRINCIPAL OBLIGATION .
16 AS REGARDS THE OBLIGATION TO SHIP THE GOODS WITHIN A SPECIFIED PERIOD , THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION THAT THAT IS A PRINCIPAL OBLIGATION , SINCE FAILURE TO OBSERVE THE SHIPMENT PERIOD COULD TO A GREATER OR LESSER EXTENT DETRACT FROM THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FOOD AID , EITHER AS A RESULT OF THE PERISHABLE NATURE OF THE FOODSTUFFS BEING TRANSPORTED OR AS A RESULT OF SUCH EVENTS AS MIGHT OCCUR AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THAT PERIOD .
17 IT MUST NEVERTHELESS BE CONSIDERED THAT , IN THE CASE OF GOODS CARRIED BY SEA , THAT OBLIGATION IS NOT INFRINGED WHERE THE GOODS ARE SHIPPED AND THE VESSEL PUTS OUT TO SEA A FEW DAYS BEHIND SCHEDULE .
18 IN THIS CASE , IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE VESSEL ARRIVED AT THE PORT OF DESTINATION BY THE PRESCRIBED DATE . ACCORDINGLY , IT MUST BE CONCLUDED THAT WHERE THE SHIPMENT PERIOD IS EXCEEDED BY ONLY A SHORT TIME , FORFEITURE OF THE SECURITY IS NOT JUSTIFIED PROVIDED THAT THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE FOOD-AID SYSTEM IS NOT THEREBY IMPAIRED .
19 AS REGARDS THE OBLIGATION TO USE VESSELS LESS THAN 15 YEARS OLD FOR THE TRANSPORT OPERATION , THE COMMISSION , BY RELYING UPON THE SCALES OF PREMIUMS CHARGED BY INSURANCE COMPANIES , WHICH DIFFER ACCORDING TO THE DATE