A FEW IRREGULARITIES OR BREACHES WHICH HAD BEEN FOUND IN PARTICULAR CASES IN THE PAST . IN NO CASE MAY MERE FORMAL ERRORS IN THE ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS JUSTIFY A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR SUSPICION . IN THE ABSENCE OF A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR SUSPICION IN A SPECIFIC CASE THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES WERE THEREFORE ENTITLED TO REQUIRE NOTHING MORE THAN SIMPLE CHECKS AND CONFIRMATIONS ON THE PART OF THE ITALIAN AUTHORITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGULARIZING THE CARRIAGE OPERATION IN QUESTION .
33 IT IS CLEAR FROM VARIOUS COMMUNICATIONS BY WHICH THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT ADDRESSED REQUESTS TO THE ITALIAN AUTHORITIES IN RELATION TO IRREGULAR VA 1 FORMS , THAT THE PURPOSE OF THOSE REQUESTS WAS SYSTEMATICALLY TO OBTAIN , WITHOUT ALLEGING ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR SUSPICION , DETAILED INVESTIGATIONS AND IN PARTICULAR TO OBTAIN THE ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS COVERING THE GOODS DURING THEIR PRELIMINARY CARRIAGE IN ITALY BETWEEN THE PLACE OF PRODUCTION AND THE WAREHOUSES FROM WHICH THEY WERE SENT TO FRANCE , SINCE THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE AS ADEQUATE SIMPLE CONFIRMATION BY TELEX FROM THE ITALIAN AUTHORITIES , AFTER VERIFICATION , THAT THE VA 1 DOCUMENTS WERE IN ORDER .
34 IT FOLLOWS THAT THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES LAID DOWN REQUIREMENTS , FOR THE PURPOSES OF REGULARIZING IRREGULAR DOCUMENTS , WHICH WERE NOT COVERED BY THE RELEVANT COMMUNITY RULES .
35 IN ADDITION , THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT CONTENDED THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH A PRACTICE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THE FRENCH AND ITALIAN AUTHORITIES , WHICH HAD EXISTED FOR SEVERAL YEARS , IRREGULARITIES SUCH AS THOSE FOUND AS FROM THE MIDDLE OF AUGUST 1981 IN THE VA 1 FORMS , WHICH OCCURRED FREQUENTLY , WERE ACCEPTED BY THE AUTHORITIES OF BOTH MEMBER STATES . THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES SUDDENLY AND WITHOUT NOTICE CHANGED THAT PRACTICE RELATING TO THE VERIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS . IN SUPPORT OF THAT CONTENTION THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT PRODUCED TO THE COURT A NUMBER OF VA 1 FORMS WHICH HAD BEEN COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE PERIOD AT ISSUE , SOME BY THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES AND SOME BY THE ITALIAN AUTHORITIES , AND WHICH , DESPITE IRREGULARITIES OF THE TYPE REFERRED TO ABOVE , WERE ACCEPTED BY THE AUTHORITIES OF BOTH COUNTRIES WITHOUT ANY OBJECTION BEING TAKEN TO THEM . THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT HAS NOT PRESENTED ANY ARGUMENT PUTTING IN DOUBT THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH A PRACTICE .
36 IN ORDER TO AVOID OBSTACLES TO TRADE THE DUTY OF COOPERATION BETWEEN MEMBER STATES WHICH IS INHERENT IN THE COMMUNITY SYSTEM REQUIRES THAT IN SUCH A CASE OF A CHANGE IN PRACTICE NOTICE OF THE NEW PRACTICE MUST BE GIVEN TO THE AUTHORITIES OF THE MEMBER STATES CONCERNED SO THAT IT IS NOT MADE IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO MAKE PREPARATIONS FOR THE NEW PRACTICE AND TO TAKE IT INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPLETING THE VA 1 DOCUMENTS .
37 MOREOVER , THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 8 OF REGULATION NO 359/79 , CITED ABOVE , ACCORDING TO WHICH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MEMBER STATES ARE TO MEET AT REGULAR INTERVALS WITHIN THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE FOR WINE