TO BE DETECTED .
13 WITH REGARD TO THE TOLERANCE MARGIN ALLOWED FOR BY THE METHOD LAID DOWN IN ANNEX IV, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT, ALTHOUGH NO 8.3 OF THAT ANNEX MAKES IT CLEAR THAT "ALLOWING FOR ERRORS IN THE METHOD AND NATURAL VARIATIONS IN THE COMPOSITION OF THE SAMPLE", THE DEFINITIVE CONCLUSION MAY BE DRAWN THAT WHEY IS ABSENT WHEN THE VALUE RESULTING FROM THE CALCULATION PROVIDED FOR IN NO 8.2 IS 2.0 OR LESS, THAT MARGIN DOES NOT MEAN THAT A WHEY CONTENT OF 2% WOULD BE TOLERATED FOR INTERVENTION PURPOSES . THE VALUE IN NO 8.2 OF ANNEX IV INDICATES ONLY THE RATIO WHICH EXPRESSES THE CONTENT IN SIALIC ACID OF THE SAMPLE, AND THE DETERMINATION OF THAT ACID MAKES IT POSSIBLE TO DETECT THE PRESENCE OF ANY RENNET WHEY .
14 WITH REGARD TO THE AID SYSTEM, IT MUST BE STATED THAT, ALTHOUGH THE MEMBER STATES ARE OBLIGED, UNDER ARTICLE 10 OF REGULATION NO*1725/79, TO ENSURE, BY TAKING CERTAIN MINIMUM INSPECTION MEASURES, THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THAT REGULATION, INCLUDING THOSE CONCERNING THE ABSENCE OF WHEY, ARE COMPLIED WITH, THAT SYSTEM DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR ANY COMMUNITY METHOD OF ANALYSIS FOR DETECTING THE PRESENCE OF WHEY . IT FOLLOWS THAT THE MEMBER STATES ARE FREE TO APPLY, IN ADDITION TO THE INSPECTION MEASURES LAID DOWN BY REGULATION NO 1725/79, THE METHODS OF ANALYSIS WHICH THEY CONSIDER TO BE APPROPRIATE AND RELIABLE, HAVING REGARD TO, AND MAKING ALLOWANCES FOR, THE ERRORS AND TOLERANCE MARGINS INHERENT IN THOSE METHODS . THAT INCLUDES EVEN THE POSSIBILITY OF USING THE METHOD PROVIDED FOR IN ANNEX IV ALTHOUGH, HAVING REGARD TO THE LIMITED PRACTICAL UTILITY OF THAT METHOD, THE MEMBER STATES ARE NOT OBLIGED BY COMMUNITY LAW TO APPLY IT SYSTEMATICALLY FOR PURPOSES FOR WHICH IT WAS NOT CONCEIVED SUCH AS, FOR INSTANCE, THE DETECTION OF WHEY IN A SAMPLE OF SKIMMED-MILK POWDER WHICH DOES NOT FULFIL ALL THE CONDITIONS AS TO COMPOSITION AND QUALITY REQUIRED FOR INTERVENTION .
15 THE ANSWER TO THE SECOND QUESTION MUST THEREFORE BE THAT, IF THE APPLICATION OF THE METHOD OF ANALYSIS DESCRIBED IN ANNEX IV TO REGULATION NO 625/78 REVEALS, HAVING REGARD TO THE TOLERANCE MARGIN LAID DOWN THEREIN, THAT NO WHEY IS PRESENT IN SKIMMED-MILK POWDER, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE SKIMMED-MILK POWDER WHICH HAS BEEN ANALYSED MUST ALSO BE REGARDED AS FREE OF WHEY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE GRANT OF AID UNDER REGULATION NO 1725/79, IF IT IS NOT IDENTICAL, IN TERMS OF COMPOSITION AND QUALITY, TO SKIMMED-MILK POWDER ELIGIBLE FOR INTERVENTION .
THE THIRD QUESTION
16 AS THE THIRD QUESTION WAS SUBMITTED ONLY IN THE EVENT OF AN AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER BEING GIVEN TO THE SECOND QUESTION, THERE IS NO NEED TO GIVE A RULING ON THE THIRD QUESTION .
THE FOURTH QUESTION
17 IN ITS FOURTH QUESTION, THE NATIONAL COURT SEEKS TO ASCERTAIN ESSENTIALLY WHETHER THE FACT THAT THE METHOD OF ANALYSIS DESCRIBED IN ANNEX IV TO REGULATION NO 625/78 IS INAPPLICABLE TO SKIMMED-MILK POWDER WHICH IS NOT IDENTICAL,