. THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT WITHDREW ITS RECOGNITION FROM THE ORGANIZATIONS IN QUESTION ON 25 JULY 1981 IN THE CASE OF ETNA ( CATANIA ) AND , IN THE CASE OF THE OTHER THREE ORGANIZATIONS , ON 10 SEPTEMBER 1982 .
15 THE CORRESPONDENCE REVEALS THAT THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT , AFTER INITIALLY CONCEDING THAT THE FOUR ORGANIZATIONS DID NOT CONFORM TO COMMUNITY LEGISLATION AND DID NOT APPEAR CAPABLE OF ADAPTING THEMSELVES , THEN ASKED THAT THEY BE ALLOWED A FURTHER PERIOD TO ENABLE THEM TO DO SO ; SUBSEQUENTLY IT CONCLUDED THAT ONLY ONE OF THE FOUR , AIPAO ( CATANIA ), WAS OPERATING IN CONFORMITY WITH THE COMMUNITY PROVISIONS . FOR ITS PART , THE COMMISSION HAD MADE IT CLEAR IN A LETTER AS EARLY AS 11 NOVEMBER 1980 THAT IT REFUSED TO ACCEPT THAT THE OPERATIONS OF THE FOUR ORGANIZATIONS WERE IN CONFORMITY WITH COMMUNITY LAW , AND HAD INDICATED THAT ITS REFUSAL ALSO MEANT THAT IT REFUSED TO FINANCE ANY COMPENSATION WHICH MIGHT BE GRANTED TO THOSE ORGANIZATIONS . IF THEREFORE THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT THOUGHT THAT IT HAD SOUND REASONS FOR REQUESTING A FURTHER PERIOD FOR ADAPTATION , IT SHOULD HAVE JUSTIFIED ITS REQUEST EITHER BY SUPPLYING EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE FOUR ASSOCIATIONS - OR AIPAO ( CATANIA ) ALONE - WERE OPERATING BETTER , OR ELSE BY EXPLAINING IN WHAT RESPECT THEIR OPERATIONS HAD IMPROVED .
16 IT SHOULD FURTHER BE OBSERVED THAT THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT CLAIMS TO HAVE BASED ITS OPINION CONCERNING THAT IMPROVEMENT ON A REPORT OF 16 DECEMBER 1980 PREPARED BY THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY , BUT IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE REPORT WAS NEVER DRAWN TO THE COMMISSION ' S ATTENTION BEFORE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS WERE COMMENCED . MOREOVER , THE COMMISSION OBSERVES THAT THE REPORT ADDS NO RELEVANT EVIDENCE TO THE FACTS AS KNOWN AT THE TIME .
17 THE COMMISSION WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED , AFTER AN EXTENDED PERIOD FOR ADJUSTMENT AND INSPECTION , TO REFUSE TO ORGANIZE NEW INQUIRIES SOLELY ON THE STRENGTH OF THE CLAIM FROM THE ITALIAN MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY THAT THE OPERATION OF ONE OF THE FOUR ORGANIZATIONS , AIPAO ( CATANIA ), HAD PROVED TO BE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE COMMUNITY RULES .
18 CONSIDERATION REMAINS TO BE GIVEN TO THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT ' S ARGUMENT THAT THE OPERATIONS INVOLVING THE WITHDRAWAL OF GOODS FROM THE MARKET BY THE ORGANIZATIONS IN QUESTION CONTINUED TO BE CONDUCTED IN CONFORMITY WITH COMMUNITY LAW UNTIL OFFICIAL RECOGNITION WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THOSE ORGANIZATIONS . THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT MAINTAINS THAT A PRODUCERS ' ORGANIZATION IS OBLIGED , FROM THE DATE OF ITS RECOGNITION UNTIL SUCH TIME AS RECOGNITION IS WITHDRAWN , TO PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS ASSIGNED TO IT BY THE REGULATIONS ON FOOD AND VEGETABLES ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION CANNOT THEREFORE BE FORFEITED IN RESPECT OF WITHDRAWALS CARRIED OUT WHEN THE ORGANIZATION STILL ENJOYED RECOGNITION .
19 THE COMMISSION , REFERRING TO THE PROVISIONS REGARDING THE FINANCING OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY AND TO THE CASE-LAW OF THE