THE DENATURING HAVING BEEN OBSERVED MIGHT BE ASKED TO REFUND THE PREMIUM EVEN IF THE USE CONTRARY TO THE INTENDED PURPOSE WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THIRD PARTIES , DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THE RELEVANT COMMUNITY PROVISIONS .
22 IT MUST NOW BE CONSIDERED WHETHER SUCH RULES ARE COMPATIBLE WITH SUPERIOR RULES OF COMMUNITY LAW , IN PARTICULAR WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF LEGAL CERTAINTY AND PROPORTIONALITY INVOKED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN ACTION .
23 AS REGARDS THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY IT IS QUITE PLAIN FROM ALL THE CONSIDERATIONS SET OUT ABOVE THAT TRADERS TO WHOM THE PROVISIONS IN QUESTION APPLY WERE FULLY AWARE OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE DENATURED SUGAR MUST BE USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR ANIMAL FEED . THEY OUGHT THEREFORE REASONABLY TO HAVE EXPECTED THAT PENALTIES WOULD BE PROVIDED FOR FAILURE TO OBSERVE THAT REQUIREMENT AND THAT SUCH PENALTIES WOULD BE INCURRED BY THE ONLY PERSON WHO WAS IN A LEGAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES OF THE MEMBER STATES .
24 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES NATIONAL RULES PROVIDING FOR THE REFUND OF PREMIUMS UNDULY PAID , EVEN WHEN THIRD PARTIES WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE USE CONTRARY TO THE INTENDED PURPOSE DO NOT AMOUNT TO A BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY .
25 AS TO THE QUESTION OF PROPORTIONALITY THE TEST TO BE APPLIED IS WHETHER SUCH RULES EXCEED THE LIMITS OF WHAT IS NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE TO ACHIEVE THE AIM IN VIEW .
26 THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PREMIUM GRANTED FOR THE DENATURING OF SUGAR MUST BE CONSIDERED IN THAT CONTEXT .
27 IT IS TRUE THAT THE PREMIUM IS PAID IN ORDER TO COVER THE COST OF THE DENATURING PROCESS , BUT IT IS CLEAR FROM THE COMMUNITY PROVISIONS IN QUESTION THAT IT IS PRIMARILY INTENDED TO ENABLE SUGAR TO BE DISPOSED OF FOR PURPOSES OF ANIMAL FEED . THE SECOND RECITAL IN THE PREAMBLE TO THE BASIC REGULATION , REGULATION NO 2049/69 , STATES MOREOVER THAT ' ' IT MIGHT BE DESIRABLE TO SPECIFY THAT THE DENATURED SUGAR SHOULD BE USED AS FEED FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF ANIMAL ' ' . IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT PROVISION THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES PROVIDED THAT SUGAR DENATURED IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY MUST BE USED FOR FEEDING BEES . THE PREMIUM WAS THEREFORE TO BE PAID PRIMARILY TO ENABLE BEE-KEEPERS TO PURCHASE DENATURED SUGAR ON MORE FAVOURABLE TERMS .
28 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IT MUST BE CONCLUDED THAT WHERE THE DENATURED SUGAR HAS BEEN DIVERTED FROM THAT PURPOSE THE PAYMENT OF THE PREMIUM BECOMES POINTLESS AND THE PENALTY WHICH HAS BEEN LAID DOWN , NAMELY REPAYMENT OF THE DENATURING PREMIUM BY THE RECIPIENT WHERE THE SUGAR HAS NOT BEEN USED FOR THE PURPOSE WHICH THAT PREMIUM WAS INTENDED TO SERVE - THE FEEDING OF BEES - DOES NOT EXCEED WHAT IS APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE END IN VIEW .
29 THE REPLY TO THE SECOND PART OF THE QUESTION MUST THEREFORE BE THAT NATIONAL RULES WHICH PROVIDE THAT THE RECIPIENT OF A DENATURING