1259/72 FIXED AT 120 DAYS TO BE CALCULATED FROM THE TAKING OVER OF THE BUTTER AND WHICH REGULATION NO 232/75 SUBSEQUENTLY EXTENDED TO SIX MONTHS TO BE CALCULATED FROM THE SAME DAY . ARTICLE 19 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 232/75 PROVIDED THAT IF THE PROCESSING PERIOD WAS EXCEEDED FOR REASONS OTHER THAN SERIOUS NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE PERSON CONCERNED , THAT PERSON COULD REQUEST , WITHIN A FURTHER 30-DAY PERIOD , THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE PROCESSING SECURITY RETAINED BE ONLY TWO UNITS OF ACCOUNT PER TONNE FOR EACH DAY BY WHICH THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD WAS EXCEEDED .
5 THE JUDGMENT OF THE NATIONAL COURT ALSO REFERS TO ARTICLE 13 ( 4 ) OF REGULATION NO 1687/76 , WHICH CAME INTO FORCE ON 1 OCTOBER 1976 . THAT PROVISION , HOWEVER , WHICH RELATES TO ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS ON THE DESTINATION OF THE BUTTER AND ON THE RELEASE OF THE SECURITY , DOES NOT DIRECTLY CONCERN THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE ACTION .
6 ARTICLE 15 OF THAT REGULATION STATES THAT ARTICLE 18 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 232/75 IS REPEALED , BUT THERE ARE NUMEROUS REASONS FOR SUPPOSING THAT IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO REPEAL THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THAT PROVISION , WHICH MADE THE RELEASE OF THE SECURITY CONDITIONAL ON THE FULFILMENT OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS . THE TITLE OF THE REGULATION , WHICH REFERS TO ' ' COMMON DETAILED RULES FOR VERIFYING THE USE AND/OR DESTINATION OF PRODUCTS FROM INTERVENTION ' ' , SUGGESTS THAT THE REGULATION WAS SOLELY INTENDED TO AMEND THE RULES GOVERNING THE FURNISHING OF PROOF THAT THE OBLIGATIONS UNDERTAKEN BY THE SUCCESSFUL TENDERER HAD BEEN FULFILLED , IN OTHER WORDS , JUST THOSE RULES WHICH WERE PROVIDED FOR IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THE PROVISION IN QUESTION . MOREOVER , REGULATION NO 1687/76 DID NOT REPEAL ARTICLE 19 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 232/75 , WHICH PROVIDED THAT ONLY PART OF THE SECURITY WAS TO BE RETAINED WHERE THE PERIOD WAS EXCEEDED AS A RESULT OF NEGLIGENCE , OTHER THAN SERIOUS NEGLIGENCE , ON THE PART OF THE PERSON CONCERNED , AND WHICH WOULD BE MEANINGLESS IF EXCEEDING THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD DID NOT PREVENT THE RELEASE OF THE SECURITY . FINALLY , COMMISSION REGULATION NO 262/79 OF 12 FEBRUARY 1979 , WHICH , ONCE AGAIN , AMENDED THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR THE RELEASE OF THE SECURITY , EXPRESSLY REPEALS ONLY REGULATION NO 232/75 , A FACT WHICH WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN IF REGULATION NO 1687/76 IMPOSED THE SAME CONDITIONS .
7 FROMANCAIS CLAIMS THAT BY TOTALLY EXCLUDING THE RELEASE OF THE SECURITY IN THE EVENT OF PROCESSING AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD , THE PROVISIONS IN QUESTION APPLY TO A RELATIVELY MINOR INFRINGEMENT OF THE UNDERTAKINGS ENTERED INTO BY THE SUCCESSFUL TENDERER THE SAME TREATMENT AS THAT WHICH IS RESERVED FOR A FAR MORE SERIOUS BREACH , SUCH AS THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF PROCESSING , AND ARE THEREFORE CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY .
8 IN