TO AVOID TREATING EXPORTERS DIFFERENTLY ACCORDING TO THE FRONTIER OVER WHICH THEIR PRODUCTS ARE EXPORTED .
16 THE COMMISSION COMPLAINS THAT THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT PAID THE REFUNDS AFTER PERIODS OF BETWEEN 12 AND 18 MONTHS WHILST THE OTHER MEMBER STATES MADE THE PAYMENTS WITHIN MUCH SHORTER PERIODS .
NEVERTHELESS THE FACTORS WHICH IT ADDUCES IN SUPPORT OF ITS APPLICATION DO NOT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT IS WELL FOUNDED .
17 THE FIRST NOTIFICATION WHICH IT ADDRESSED TO THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT WAS DATED 27 FEBRUARY 1968, THAT IS TO SAY, TWO MONTHS AFTER THE PUBLICATION ON 23 DECEMBER 1967 OF REGULATION NO 1041/67/EEC, WHEREAS ON 31 JANUARY AND 20 FEBRUARY 1968 THE DEFENDANT HAD TAKEN THE FIRST MEASURES INTENDED TO FACILITATE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SAID REGULATION AND PAID A CERTAIN NUMBER OF REFUNDS, ALBEIT FOR VERY SMALL AMOUNTS .
18 MOREOVER, IN ITS REQUEST FOR OBSERVATIONS OF 12 JULY 1968, THE APPLICANT STATES THAT AT THIS STAGE PAYMENTS HAVE ONLY BEEN MADE FOR " VERY SMALL " AMOUNTS WHILST IT EMERGES FROM THE TABLE ANNEXED TO THE WRITTEN REPLY GIVEN TO THE QUESTIONS PUT BY THE COURT THAT IN THE FIRST HALF OF 1968 THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT HAD PAID REFUNDS AMOUNTING TO 6 841 MILLION LIRE, 5 800 000 LIRE OF WHICH RELATE TO REFUNDS FOR THE PREVIOUS HALF-YEAR .
DURING THE SECOND HALF OF 1968 IT PAID 10 442 MILLION LIRE, 4 044 MILLION OF WHICH RELATE TO THE TWO PREVIOUS SIX-MONTHLY PERIODS, THAT IS TO SAY, THE PERIOD FROM 1 JULY 1967 TO 30 JUNE 1968 .
19 IN THE FIRST HALF OF 1969 IT PAID 6 950 MILLION LIRE, 1 169 MILLION OF WHICH RELATE TO THE THREE PREVIOUS SIX-MONTHLY PERIODS .
NEVERTHELESS AMONGST THE SUMS QUOTED AS REFUNDS PAID IN ARREARS DURING THIS SIX-MONTHLY PERIOD THERE APPEARS AN AMOUNT OF 718 800 000 LIRE WHICH PLAINLY RELATES TO THE OPTIONAL SYSTEM OF REFUNDS IN FORCE BEFORE 1 JULY 1968 RELATING TO MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS AND BEEF AND VEAL AND WHICH IS CONSEQUENTLY IRRELEVANT TO THE DISPUTE .
20 ALTHOUGH THOSE FACTS REVEAL THE EXISTENCE OF DELAYS, WHICH WERE SOMETIMES CONSIDERABLE, IN THE PAYMENT OF THE REFUNDS THEY DO NOT HOWEVER CONVEY A PRECISE IMPRESSION OF THEIR EXTENT WHICH MIGHT IN THEORY HAVE BEEN BETWEEN ONE TO TWO MONTHS AND 18 MONTHS .
FURTHERMORE, EXAMINATION OF THE FIGURES SUPPLIED TENDS TO INDICATE THAT THE DELAY FUNDAMENTALLY RELATD TO THE EXPORTS EFFECTED IN THE SECOND HALF OF 1967 AND THAT SUBSEQUENTLY THESE ARREARS WERE GRADUALLY ABSORBED .
FINALLY, ALTHOUGH MENTION HAS BEEN MADE OF FIGURES GREATER THAN THOSE SHOWN BY THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT, NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN SUPPLIED CAPABLE OF PROVING THEM .
21 THE FACT THAT TWO UNDERTAKINGS HAVE INITIATED PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ITALIAN STATE IN THE NATIONAL COURTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF VERY CONSIDERABLE SUMS CANNOT, IN THE ABSENCE OF INFORMATION AS TO THE NATURE OF THE DISPUTES, CONSTITUTE PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF A FAILURE .
FURTHERMORE THE FINDINGS