THAT PRINCIPLE IS A SUPERIOR RULE OF LAW FOR THE PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUALS WHICH THE COURT HAS ALWAYS APPLIED WHEN HOLDING THAT DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN PRODUCERS OF SUBSTITUTABLE PRODUCTS WHO ARE IN COMPARABLE SITUATIONS IS UNLAWFUL .
11 IT IS TRUE THAT IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 19 OCTOBER 1977 CITED BY THE APPLICANT ( JOINED CASES 124/76 AND 20/77 MOULINS ET HUILERIES DE PONT-A-MOUSSON AND OTHERS V ONIC (( 1977 )) ECR 1795 ), THE COURT HELD THAT THE ABOLITION IN 1975 OF THE PRODUCTION REFUNDS THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN GRANTED FOR MAIZE GRITZ AND THE RETENTION OF REFUNDS FOR A SUBSTITUTABLE PRODUCT, MAIZE STARCH, WAS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT CASE A BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL TREATMENT . THERE WAS NO OBJECTIVE FACTOR TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION HAD CEASED TO BE IN COMPARABLE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN PARTICULAR IN SO FAR AS STARCH CAN BE SUBSTITUTED FOR MAIZE GRITZ IN THE MANUFACTURE OF BEER AND THE CHOICE OF THE BREWING INDUSTRY BETWEEN THE TWO PRODUCTS LARGELY DEPENDS ON THE COST OF SUPPLIES .
12 IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER, THE COURT CONSIDERS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT ADDUCED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT GRANIDON AND PRODUCTS TRADITIONALLY USED IN THE BREWING INDUSTRY ARE INDEED IN A COMPARABLE SITUATION AS DEFINED IN THE AFOREMENTIONED JUDGMENT .
13 FIRST OF ALL, THE APPLICANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT GRANIDON IS INDEED SUBSTITUTABLE FOR THE PRODUCTS TRADITIONALLY USED . ALTHOUGH SOME BREWERIES DO IN FACT MAKE SOME USE OF GRANIDON, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT THAT THE USE OF THIS PRODUCT IN BREWING POSES CERTAIN TECHNICAL PROBLEMS .
14 SECONDLY, THE APPLICANT WAS UNABLE, EVEN IN RESPONSE TO AN INVITATION TO THAT EFFECT BY THE COURT, TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS FROM BREWERIES TO BEAR OUT ITS CONTENTION THAT TRADERS TENDED TO PREFER THE TRADITIONAL PRODUCTS CHIEFLY BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENCE IN THE COST OF SUPPLIES RESULTING FROM THE REFUSAL OF REFUNDS . A REPORT ON THE VISITS MADE BY THE APPLICANT TO BREWERIES SHOWS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT ONE LARGE BREWERY WOULD IN ANY EVENT NOT HAVE BOUGHT GRANIDON EVEN IF ITS PRICE HAD BEEN THE SAME AS THAT OF GRITZ .
15 ALREADY ON THE GROUND THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THERE HAS BEEN ANY BREACH OF A SUPERIOR RULE OF LAW FOR THE PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUALS, THE COMMUNITY CANNOT BE HELD TO HAVE INCURRED NON-CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY IN THIS INSTANCE .
THE SUBMISSION RELATING TO THE INSTITUTIONS' MANIFEST AND GRAVE DISREGARD OF THE LIMITS OF THEIR DISCRETION
16 NOR HAS THE APPLICANT ESTABLISHED THAT BY WITHHOLDING PRODUCTION REFUNDS FROM GRANIDON THE INSTITUTIONS MANIFESTLY AND GRAVELY DISREGARDED THE LIMITS OF THEIR DISCRETION IN SUCH A WAY AS TO INCUR THE LIABILITY OF THE COMMUNITY .
17 IT IS TRUE THAT IN ITS AFORESAID JUDGMENTS OF 4 OCTOBER 1979 THE COURT DID INDEED CONSIDER THAT THE COMMUNITY HAD INCURRED LIABILITY AS A RESULT OF THE UNLAWFUL ABOLITION OF REFUNDS FOR MAIZE GRITZ AND QUELLMEHL WHICH HAD