2 OF THAT REGULATION THE MEMBER STATES MAY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF PRODUCERS WHO, PURSUANT TO AN UNDERTAKING ENTERED INTO UNDER COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1078/77 OF 17 MAY 1977, DID NOT DELIVER MILK DURING THE REFERENCE YEAR ADOPTED ONLY IN SO FAR AS EACH PRODUCER FULFILS THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN REGULATION NO 857/84 AND IF THE MEMBER STATES HAVE REFERENCE QUANTITIES AVAILABLE FOR THAT PURPOSE ".
THE QUESTION OF VALIDITY RAISED BY THE NATIONAL COURT MUST BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THAT INTERPRETATION .
MR VON DEETZEN MAINTAINS THAT THE REGULATIONS IN QUESTION INFRINGE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY LAW AND ARE THUS INVALID . HE CLAIMS THAT THEY WERE ADOPTED IN BREACH OF HIS RIGHT TO ENJOY PROPERTY AND HIS FREEDOM TO CHOOSE AN OCCUPATION AND INFRINGE THE PRINCIPLES OF EQUALITY, LEGAL CERTAINTY AND PROTECTION OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS . AS REGARDS THE LATTER PRINCIPLE IN PARTICULAR, MR VON DEETZEN STATES THAT THOSE PRODUCERS WHO, ENCOURAGED BY THE SYSTEM OF PREMIUMS, DISCONTINUED PRODUCTION WOULD NOT HAVE DONE SO IF THEY HAD KNOWN THAT THEIR NON-MARKETING AGREEMENTS WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF PREVENTING THEM FROM BEING ALLOCATED A REFERENCE QUANTITY UNDER THE NEW QUOTA SYSTEM .
THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION, ON THE OTHER HAND, BOTH CONTEND THAT THE REGULATIONS AT ISSUE ARE VALID BECAUSE THEY ALLOW THE MEMBER STATES SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS OF GRANTING QUOTAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE ADDITIONAL LEVY TO THOSE PRODUCERS WHO, DURING THE REFERENCE YEAR, RECEIVED A PREMIUM UNDER REGULATION NO 1078/77 . THE COMMISSION ALSO ANALYSES THE SCOPE OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES RELIED UPON AND CONCLUDES THAT THEY HAVE BEEN PROPERLY RESPECTED IN THIS CASE . AS REGARDS MORE PARTICULARLY THE PRINCIPLES OF LEGAL CERTAINTY AND PROTECTION OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS, IT CONTENDS THAT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN INFRINGED SINCE THE PRODUCERS IN QUESTION WERE NOT ENTITLED TO EXPECT THAT, UPON THE EXPIRY OF THEIR FIVE-YEAR UNDERTAKING, THEY WOULD BE GRANTED AN UNLIMITED RIGHT TO RESUME MILK PRODUCTION .
IT MUST BE CONCEDED, AS THE COMMISSION HAS CORRECTLY POINTED OUT, THAT A PRODUCER WHO HAS VOLUNTARILY CEASED PRODUCTION FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD CANNOT LEGITIMATELY EXPECT TO BE ABLE TO RESUME PRODUCTION UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS AS THOSE WHICH PREVIOUSLY APPLIED AND NOT TO BE SUBJECT TO ANY RULES OF MARKET OR STRUCTURAL POLICY ADOPTED IN THE MEAN TIME .
THE FACT REMAINS THAT WHERE SUCH A PRODUCER, AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, HAS BEEN ENCOURAGED BY A COMMUNITY MEASURE TO SUSPEND MARKETING FOR A LIMITED PERIOD IN THE GENERAL INTEREST AND AGAINST PAYMENT OF A PREMIUM HE MAY LEGITIMATELY EXPECT NOT TO BE SUBJECT, UPON THE EXPIRY OF HIS UNDERTAKING, TO RESTRICTIONS WHICH SPECIFICALLY AFFECT HIM PRECISELY BECAUSE HE AVAILED HIMSELF OF THE POSSIBILITIES OFFERED BY THE COMMUNITY PROVISIONS .
HOWEVER, THE REGULATIONS ON THE ADDITIONAL LEVY ON MILK GIVE RISE TO SUCH RESTRICTIONS FOR PRODUCERS WHO, PURSUANT TO AN UNDERTAKING ENTERED INTO UNDER REGULATION NO 1078/77, DID NOT DELIVER MILK DURING THE REFERENCE YEAR . THOSE PRODUCERS MAY