TREATY , VARIOUS QUESTIONS ON THE INTERPRETATION OF REGULATION NO 120/67 OF THE COUNCIL OF 13 JUNE 1967 ON THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN CEREALS ( OJ , ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1967 , P . 33 ).
THE QUESTIONS WERE REFERRED IN THE CONTEXT OF AN ACTION INITIATED BY AN ITALIAN PRODUCER OF DURUM WHEAT AGAINST THE STATE AGENCY FOR INTERVENTION ON THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET ( AIMA ).
THE PRODUCER CLAIMS THAT HE HAS BEEN INJURED BY THE ACTIONS OF THE AIMA IN THAT IT PURCHASED LARGE QUANTITIES OF DURUM WHEAT ON THE WORLD MARKET AND RESOLD THEM TO ITALIAN PRODUCERS OF MACARONI , SPAGHETTI AND SIMILAR PRODUCTS ( ' PASTA PRODUCTS ' ) AT PRICES CONSIDERABLY BELOW THE PURCHASE PRICES AND INDEED BELOW THE INTERVENTION PRICE FIXED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN CEREALS .
2 THE PURPOSE OF THIS ACTION , WHICH WAS UNDERTAKEN IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ANTI-INFLATION POLICY OF THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT , WAS TO PROVIDE SUPPLIES FOR THE PASTA INDUSTRY AT PRICES WHICH WOULD ENSURE THAT PRODUCTION WAS PROFITABLE DESPITE THE MAXIMUM PRICES IMPOSED ON THE FINISHED PRODUCTS AT THE WHOLESALE AND RETAIL STAGES .
THE ACTION WAS TAKEN AT A PERIOD WHEN PRICES ON THE WORLD MARKET WERE APPRECIABLY HIGHER THAN PRICES FIXED UNDER COMMUNITY RULES , WHEREBY ALL EXPORTS OF DURUM WHEAT , COMMUNITY PRODUCTION OF WHICH IS INSUFFICIENT TO MEET REQUIREMENTS , WERE PROHIBITED TO THIRD COUNTRIES .
IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FILE THAT , ON THE ONE HAND , THE RESALE PRICE CHARGED BY AIMA TO THE PASTA INDUSTRY WAS APPROXIMATELY LIT . 13 000 PER QUINTAL , THAT IS TO SAY , IT WAS BELOW THE TARGET PRICE OF ABOUT LIT . 16 400 AND INDEED BELOW THE INTERVENTION PRICE OF ABOUT LIT . 15 000 AND THAT , ON THE OTHER HAND , THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN ACTION OBTAINED A PRICE OF LIT . 17 000 PER QUINTAL FOR A QUANTITY OF DURUM WHEAT SOLD IN JANUARY 1975 .
3 IN THE FIRST TWO QUESTIONS THE NATIONAL COURT ASKS ESSENTIALLY WHETHER THE PURCHASE OF DURUM WHEAT BY A MEMBER STATE ON THE WORLD MARKET AND ITS RESALE AT PRICES BELOW THE PURCHASE PRICE , AND EVEN BELOW THE INTERVENTION PRICE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN CEREALS .
THE THIRD , FOURTH AND FIFTH QUESTIONS CONCERN THE INDIVIDUAL POSITION OF TRADERS IN THE EVENT OF UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE BY THE STATE IN THE MACHINERY OF PRICE FORMATION PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET AND THE CONSEQUENCES TO BE DRAWN IF SUCH INTERFERENCE WERE TO RESULT IN AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHTS ACCORDED TO THOSE TRADERS BY COMMUNITY RULES .
4 THESE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO THE COURT AS A RESULT OF NON- COMPULSORY INTERVENTION BY THE STATE ON THE MARKET IN CEREALS , THE AIM OF WHICH WAS NOT TO INFLUENCE DIRECTLY THE FORMATION OF PRICES ON THAT MARKET BUT TO CHECK