ARTICLE 6 OF REGULATION NO 1883/78, UPON WHICH THE COMMISSION RELIED IN ADOPTING ITS CONTESTED DECISION OF 7 JUNE 1985, PROVIDES THAT
"MATERIAL OPERATIONS ARISING FROM THE STORAGE AND, WHERE APPROPRIATE, PROCESSING OF INTERVENTION PRODUCTS SHALL BE FINANCED BY THE EAGGF, GUARANTEE SECTION, BY MEANS OF STANDARD AMOUNTS UNIFORM THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY, TO BE LAID DOWN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 13 OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 729/70 AND, WHERE NECESSARY, AFTER EXAMINATION OF THE MATTER BY THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE CONCERNED ."
13 IT IS CLEAR FROM THE VERY WORDING OF THAT PROVISION THAT IT DOES NOT COVER ALL THE MATERIAL OPERATIONS RELATING TO AN INTERVENTION MEASURE BUT ONLY THOSE DERIVING FROM STORAGE OR PROCESSING, SO THAT THE COSTS INCURRED IN THE OPERATION OF COLOURING CANNOT BE LAWFULLY MADE SUBJECT BY THE COMMISSION TO A SYSTEM OF REIMBURSEMENT BY MEANS OF STANDARD AMOUNTS UNLESS THAT OPERATION CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS A MATERIAL OPERATION DERIVING FROM THE STORAGE OR PROCESSING OF AN INTERVENTION PRODUCT .
14 SINCE ANNEX I, POINT I, OF REGULATION NO 3247/81 CLARIFIES HOW THE TERM "MATERIAL OPERATIONS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 6 OF REGULATION NO 1883/78 IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD, IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE COLOURING OF CEREALS CAN BE DEFINED EITHER AS A MATERIAL OPERATION RELATING TO WITHDRAWAL FROM STOCK ( POINT I-1 ( C ) ), OR AS A PRODUCT-PROCESSING OPERATION ( POINT I-1 ( D ) ).
15 THE COLOURING OF CEREALS CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A PROCESSING OPERATION, WITHIN THE MEANING OF POINT I-1 ( D ) OF ANNEX I, FOR THE CONVERSION OF A PRODUCT INTENDED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION INTO A PRODUCT INTENDED FOR CONSUMPTION BY ANIMALS, AS CONTENDED BY THE COMMISSION . PROCESSING, IN ITS USUAL SENSE, IMPLIES THAT THERE IS AN ALTERATION IN THE INTRINSIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRODUCT, WHEREAS THE COLOURING AT ISSUE HERE DOES NO MORE THAN RENDER THE CEREALS IDENTIFIABLE IN ORDER TO FACILITATE VERIFICATION OF THEIR USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS . IN THAT CONNECTION, IT IS ALSO SIGNIFICANT THAT THE COMMISSION, IN ITS DECISION OF 7 JUNE 1985, CONSIDERED IT APPROPRIATE TO INCLUDE THE COSTS AT ISSUE IN THE COSTS OF WITHDRAWAL FROM THE WAREHOUSE .
16 THE COMMISSION' S ARGUMENT THAT THE COSTS OF COLOURING SHOULD BE ASSIMILATED TO VERIFICATION COSTS WHICH ARE NORMALLY AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE COSTS OF WITHDRAWAL FROM STOCK LIKEWISE CANNOT BE UPHELD .
17 WHILST IT IS TRUE THAT THE COLOURING OF CEREALS WAS PRESCRIBED FOR VERIFICATION PURPOSES AND CEREALS CANNOT BE WITHDRAWN FROM STOCK FOR USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS UNTIL AFTER COLOURING HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT, IT MUST NEVERTHELESS BE STATED THAT THE ONLY PURPOSE OF SUCH AN OPERATION IS TO VERIFY THE FINAL USE OF THE PRODUCTS . IT IS THEREBY DISTINGUISHED FROM THE OTHER CONTROL OPERATIONS WHICH THE COMMISSION, HAVING REGARD TO THE QUESTIONNAIRES WHICH IT SENDS TO THE MEMBER STATES FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE STANDARD AMOUNTS AND TO THE WORKING DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE DETERMINATION OF