NECESSARY, THE NON-PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT BY THE IMPORTER'S SUPPLIER MIGHT BE REGARDED AS A CASE OF FORCE MAJEURE .
FINALLY, IT ASKS WHETHER IT IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE ABOVEMENTIONED ARTICLE 6(2 ) THAT ' AS A RESULT OF FORCE MAJEURE, IMPORTATION WOULD INVOLVE THE IMPORTER IN CONSIDERABLE ECONOMIC DIFFICULTIES AND COULD ONLY TAKE PLACE AT EXCESSIVE ECONOMIC SACRIFICE '.
IT IS APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER THESE VARIOUS QUESTIONS TOGETHER .
ARTICLE 6(2 ) PROVIDES THAT THE OBLIGATION TO IMPORT IS CANCELLED WHERE THE IMPORTATION CANNOT BE EFFECTED DURING THE TERM OF VALIDITY OF THE LICENCE OWING TO FORCE MAJEURE .
AS THE CONCEPT OF FORCE MAJEURE IS NOT IDENTICAL IN THE DIFFERENT BRANCHES OF LAW AND THE VARIOUS FIELDS OF APPLICATION, THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS CONCEPT MUST BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK WITHIN WHICH IT IS INTENDED TO TAKE EFFECT .
THUS, THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONCEPT OF FORCE MAJEURE USED IN THE REGULATION IN QUESTION MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE PARTICULAR NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIPS IN PUBLIC LAW BETWEEN THE IMPORTERS AND THE NATIONAL ADMINISTRATION, AS WELL AS THE OBJECTIVES OF THAT REGULATION .
THE PUBLIC INTEREST WHICH REQUIRES THE MOST ACCURATE FORECAST POSSIBLE OF THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF IMPORTS IN EACH MEMBER STATE AND WARRANTS THE LODGING OF A DEPOSIT ON THE ISSUE OF AN IMPORT LICENCE MUST BE RECONCILED WITH THE NEED, WHICH IS ALSO A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST, FOR TRADE BETWEEN STATES TO REMAIN UNHAMPERED BY OBLIGATIONS WHICH ARE TOO RIGID .
P . 386
THE TREAT OF THE LOSS OF THE DEPOSIT IS INTENDED TO ENCOURAGE THE IMPORTERS TO WHOM A LICENCE HAS BEEN ISSUED TO FULFIL THE OBLIGATION TO IMPORT AND THUS TO ENSURE THE ACCURACY OF THE FORECAST OF THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF IMPORTS IN THE GENERAL INTEREST .
IT FOLLOWS THEREFORE THAT AN IMPORTER WHO HAS SHOWN THE NECESSARY DILIGENCE IS IN PRINCIPLE RELEASED FROM THE OBLIGATION TO IMPORT WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 6 OF REGULATION NO 136/64/EEC WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES OUTSIDE HIS CONTROL MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO EFFECT THE IMPORTATION WITHIN THE REQUIRED PERIOD .
SUCH IS THE CASE WHEN THE EVENT WHICH RENDERS IMPOSSIBLE THE PERFORMANCE IN DUE TIME OF A CONTRACT WHICH, UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, OUGHT TO HAVE ENABLED THE IMPORTER TO FULFIL HIS OBLIGATION TO IMPORT, IS SO UNUSUAL THAT IT WOULD HAVE HAD TO BE CONSIDERED AS IMPROBABLE BY A PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN EXERCISING ALL DUE CARE .
SOME OF THE CASES ENUMERATED IN ARTICLE 6(3 ) APPEAR TO BE BASED ON THIS CRITERION, AS THEY DO NOT REFER TO SITUATIONS CORRESPONDING TO A CONCEPT OF FORCE MAJEURE IN THE SENSE OF ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY, BUT TO UNUSUAL DIFFICULTIES WHICH ARE INDEPENDENT OF THE WILL OF IMPORTERS AND WHICH ARISE DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACTS .
HOWEVER, RECOGNITION OF A CASE OF FORCE MAJEURE PRESUPPOSES NOT ONLY THE OCCURRENCE OF AN UNUSUAL EVENT BUT ALSO THAT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT EVENT COULD NOT BE AVOIDED, AS FOR EXAMPLE