A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY LAW . IT THEREFORE SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING :
' ' 1 . DOES A PRODUCT CONSISTING OF A SPRAY-DRIED MIXTURE OF SKIMMED MILK AND A DRIED-MILK PRODUCT COME WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF SKIMMED-MILK POWDER LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 1 ( C ) OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 986/68 OF THE COUNCIL OF 15 JULY 1968 IF THAT END PRODUCT REVEALS THE SAME COMPOSITION ( PROTEIN , CARBOHYDRATE ETC .) AS SKIMMED-MILK POWDER DERIVED DIRECTLY FROM COW ' S MILK?
2.DOES ARTICLE 10 OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 990/72 OF THE COMMISSION OF 15 MAY 1972 FOUND AN OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE AUTHORITIES OF THE MEMBER STATES TO SUPERVISE THE PRODUCTION OF SKIMMED-MILK POWDER ON THE PRODUCER ' S PREMISES?
3.DOES ARTICLE 10 OF THE LAST AFOREMENTIONED REGULATION ENURE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE RECIPIENTS OF AID AS THIRD PARTIES , THAT IS , MAY THEY INVOKE FAILINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES IN THAT RESPECT SO AS TO PRECLUDE A DEMAND FOR REPAYMENT?
4.DOES COMMUNITY LAW , IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 8 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 729/70 OF THE COUNCIL OF 21 APRIL 1970 , CONTAIN RULES GOVERNING THE SUBSTANTIVE BURDEN OF PROOF OR ARE THOSE RULES DETERMINED BY NATIONAL LAW AS REGARDS THE QUESTION WHETHER , IN A GIVEN CASE , AIDS FOR SKIMMED MILK AND SKIMMED-MILK POWDER FOR USE AS FEED UNDER REGULATION NO 986/68 OF THE COUNCIL , AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS ADOPTED IN IMPLEMENTATION THEREOF , HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY GRANTED? IF COMMUNITY LAW CONTAINS RULES GOVERNING THE BURDEN OF PROOF : WHAT ARE THOSE RULES?
5.DOES ARTICLE 8 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 729/70 OF THE COUNCIL OF 21 APRIL 1970 PROVIDE A DIRECT LEGAL BASIS UPON WHICH NATIONAL AUTHORITIES MAY DEMAND REIMBURSEMENT OF AID GRANTED UNLAWFULLY WITH THE RESULT THAT THE FACTUAL PRECONDITIONS TO BE SATISFIED FOR SUCH A DEMAND ARE DEFINITIVELY LAID DOWN IN THAT PROVISION?
6.IF THE FIFTH QUESTION IS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE : WITHIN WHAT PROVISIONS , IF APPROPRIATE SUPPLEMENTED BY UNWRITTEN LEGAL PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY LAW , IS THE EXPECTATION OF THE RECIPIENT OF AID PROTECTED AND IF SO UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS AND TO WHAT EXTENT? MAY THE RECIPIENT OF AID IN PARTICULAR UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES PLEAD LOSS OF ENRICHMENT AND IS THERE SUCH A LOSS WHERE THE RECIPIENT OF AID HAS PASSED THE AID ON IN THE SELLING PRICE? IS RECOVERY PRECLUDED WHERE THE AUTHORITY KNEW , OR DID NOT KNOW AS A RESULT OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE , THAT IT WAS GRANTING THE AID UNLAWFULLY?
7.IF THE FIFTH QUESTION IS ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE : IS IT COMPATIBLE WITH COMMUNITY LAW FOR NATIONAL LAW TO PRECLUDE A DEMAND FOR REPAYMENT OF AID GRANTED UNLAWFULLY :
WHERE THE BENEFICIARY RELIED UPON THE NOTICE GRANTING AID BEING MAINTAINED IN FORCE AND THAT EXPECTATION , WEIGHED AGAINST THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN REVOCATION , IS WORTHY OF PROTECTION ( PARAGRAPH