AGRICULTURAL MARKETS AS AGAINST THE RULES LAID DOWN FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMON MARKET AS A WHOLE , OF WHICH ARTICLE 37 IS ONE . THAT CONSIDERATION MAKES IT SUPERFLUOUS TO CARRY OUT ANY INVESTIGATION AS TO WHETER IN FACT AN AGENCY SUCH AS THE PBC MAY LEGITIMATELY BE DESCRIBED AS A ' ' MONOPOLY ' ' WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 37 . QUESTION 6 CAN THEREFORE EQUALLY REMAIN UNANSWERED .
23 FINALLY , HAVING REGARD TO THE ANSWER GIVEN TO QUESTIONS 4 , 5 AND 7 IT DOES NOT APPEAR NECESSARY TO GO INTO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ACTIVITIES OF THE PBC MIGHT HAVE ADVERSELY AFFECTED THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 85 AND 86 OF THE TREATY .
THE COUNTER-CLAIM ( QUESTION 10 )
24 THE QUESTIONS TO WHICH AN ANSWER HAS BEEN GIVEN ABOVE RELATE TO THE ACTION BROUGHT BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURT IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE CLAIM FOR THE RECOVERY OF LEVIES WHICH THE DEFENDANT IN THE MAIN ACTION REFUSED TO PAY AS FROM THE TIME WHEN IT DECIDED TO WITHDRAW FROM THE SYSTEM OPERATED BY THE PBC . IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT ITS REFUSAL TO PAY THAT LEVY WAS JUSTIFIED TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE LEVY SERVES TO FINANCE A BONUS FOR THE MARKETING OF PIGMEAT . THE DEFENDANT HAS ALSO , BY A COUNTER-CLAIM , APPLIED FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE SAME LEVY FOR THE PRIOR PERIOD DURING WHICH IT CO-OPERATED WITH THE PBC AND CONSEQUENTLY HAD THE ADVANTAGE OF THE BONUS AND THE NATIONAL COURT WISHES TO KNOW WHETHER IT MUST APPLY TO SUCH A CLAIM THE PRINCIPLES OF ITS NATIONAL LAW OR THE PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY LAW . IT STATES MOREOVER THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE PRINCIPLES OF ITS NATIONAL LAW IT WOULD PROBABLY FEEL IT NECESSARY TO DISMISS THE COUNTER-CLAIM . HOWEVER , IT WISHES TO KNOW , IN THE EVENT OF COMMUNITY LAW ' S BEING APPLICABLE TO SUCH A CLAIM , WHETHER THE PRINCIPLES INHERENT IN COMMUNITY LAW MIGHT MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO ALLOW A CLAIM THE REFUND OF SUMS ACTUALLY PAID , WITH OR WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF THE BONUS RECEIVED BY THE DEFENDANT .
25 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT THE LEVY DEMANDED IN THE FRAMEWORK OF A NATIONAL MARKETING SYSTEM FOR PIGMEAT IS NOT DUE TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT IS DEVOTED TO PURPOSES INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TREATY RELATING TO THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS AND WITH THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN THE SECTOR CONCERNED . IN PRINCIPLE ANY TRADER WHO IS REQUIRED TO PAY THE LEVY HAS THEREFORE THE RIGHT TO CLAIM THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THAT PART OF THE LEVY WHICH IS THUS DEVOTED TO PURPOSES INCOMPATIBLE WITH COMMUNITY LAW . HOWEVER , IT IS FOR THE NATIONAL COURT TO ASSESS , ACCORDING TO ITS NATIONAL LAW , IN EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE , WHETHER AND TO WHAT EXTENT THE LEVY PAID MAY BE RECOVERED AND WHETHER THERE MAY BE SET OFF AGAINST