NECESSARY FOR THE REASONING OF THE COURT .
6 IN ORDER TO ANSWER THE QUESTION SUBMITTED, IT MUST FIRST BE BORNE IN MIND, AS THE COURT HELD IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 30 JANUARY 1974 IN CASE 158/73 KAMPFFMEYER V EINFUHR - UND VORRATSSTELLE GETREIDE (( 1974 )) ECR 101, THAT SINCE THE CONCEPT OF FORCE MAJEURE DIFFERS IN ITS SCOPE IN DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE LAW AND IN ITS VARIOUS SPHERES OF APPLICATION, ITS PRECISE MEANING MUST BE DETERMINED BY REFERENCE TO THE LEGAL CONTEXT IN WHICH IT IS INTENDED TO OPERATE . IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE LEGAL SITUATION IS CHARACTERIZED BY THE OBLIGATION IMPOSED BY COMMUNITY LAW UPON THE HOLDER OF THE EXPORT LICENCE TO EXPORT THE GOODS IN QUESTION DURING THE PERIOD OF VALIDITY OF HIS LICENCE, THE FULFILMENT OF THAT OBLIGATION BEING GUARANTEED BY THE PROVISION OF SECURITY, AS IS APPARENT IN PARTICULAR FROM ARTICLES 8*(1 ) AND 29*(B ) OF REGULATION NO 3183/80 AND THE NINTH RECITAL IN ITS PREAMBLE . BY VIRTUE OF THE COMBINED PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 36 AND 37 OF THE SAME REGULATION, THAT SECURITY IS TO BE RELEASED WHEN THE COMPETENT NATIONAL AUTHORITY CANCELS THE OBLIGATION TO EXPORT BECAUSE "AS A RESULT OF FORCE MAJEURE ... EXPORTATION CANNOT BE EFFECTED DURING THE PERIOD OF VALIDITY OF THE LICENCE ".
7 THE COURT HELD IN THE ABOVEMENTIONED JUDGMENT, WITH RESPECT TO PROVISIONS SIMILAR TO ARTICLES 36 AND 37 OF REGULATION NO 3183/80, THAT THE CONCEPT OF FORCE MAJEURE WAS NOT LIMITED TO CASES OF ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY . HOWEVER, THE COURT HAS ALSO CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT, WHILST THAT CONCEPT DOES NOT PRESUPPOSE ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY, IT NEVERTHELESS REQUIRES THE NON-PERFORMANCE OF THE ACT IN QUESTION TO BE DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PERSON CLAIMING FORCE MAJEURE WHICH ARE ABNORMAL AND UNFORESEEABLE AND OF WHICH THE CONSEQUENCES COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED DESPITE THE EXERCISE OF ALL DUE CARE .
8 WHERE THE FAILURE TO EXPORT GOODS AS PLANNED IS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO ANY FAULT ON THE PART OF THE HOLDER OF THE EXPORT LICENCE BUT IS DUE SOLELY TO NON-PERFORMANCE BY THE OTHER PARTY TO THE SALES CONTRACT UNDER WHICH THE GOODS WERE TO BE EXPORTED, IT IS CLEAR THAT ALTHOUGH SUCH A HINDRANCE TO THE PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT MAY BE DESCRIBED AS A CIRCUMSTANCE OUTSIDE THE CONTROL OF THE HOLDER OF THE LICENCE, IT IS NONE THE LESS NEITHER ABNORMAL NOR UNFORESEEABLE . SUCH AN EVENT IS AN ORDINARY COMMERCIAL RISK INHERENT IN COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS AND IT IS FOR THE HOLDER OF THE LICENCE, WHO IS FULLY AT LIBERTY TO SELECT SUCH TRADING PARTNERS AS HIS INTERESTS IN THAT RESPECT MAY DICTATE, TO TAKE THE APPROPRIATE PRECAUTIONS EITHER BY INCLUDING THE REQUISITE CLAUSES IN THE CONTRACT IN QUESTION OR BY EFFECTING APPROPRIATE INSURANCE .
9 IT MUST THEREFORE BE STATED IN REPLY TO THE NATIONAL COURT THAT THE CONCEPT OF FORCE MAJEURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLES 36 AND 37 OF COMMISSION REGULATION NO 3183/80 OF 3 DECEMBER 1980,