1 BY ORDER DATED 31 OCTOBER 1974 FILED AT THE COURT ON 6 JANUARY 1975 THE BUNDESGERICHTSHOF HAS REFERRED TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY THE QUESTION WHETHER DECISION NO 69/138/EEC OF THE COMMISSION OF 8 MAY 1969 AUTHORIZING THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY TO LIMIT ITS INTERVENTIONS TO CERTAIN CEREALS ( OJ L 112, P . 1 ) IS VALID IN RESPECT OF CEREALS HARVESTED IN OTHER MEMBER STATES OF THE COMMUNITY WHICH ON 8 MAY 1969 WERE ALREADY IN TRANSIT TO THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH AN OFFER IN PROPER FORM WAS NOT MADE TO THE INTERVENTION AGENCY UNTIL AFTER THAT DATE . THE BUNDESGERICHTSHOF GOES ON TO ASK WHETHER, IF SO, THE ABOVEMENTIONED DECISION IS VALID IN RESPECT OF CEREALS WHICH WERE ALREADY IN TRANSIT ON 2 MAY 1969 .
2 SINCE THE DECISION IN QUESTION CONSTITUTES A DEROGATION FROM THE PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 120/67 OF THE COUNCIL OF 13 JUNE 1967 ON THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN CEREALS ( OJ NO 117 P . 2269 ) AND OF REGULATION NO 132/67 OF THE COUNCIL OF 13 JUNE 1967 LAYING DOWN GENERAL RULES FOR INTERVENTION ON THE MARKET IN CEREALS ( OJ NO 120, P . 2364 ), IT MUST BE INTERPRETED IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBJECTIVES PURSUED BY THOSE REGULATIONS .
3 THE INTERVENTION SYSTEM WAS SET UP WITH A VIEW TO GUARANTEEING TO PRODUCERS, HAVING REGARD TO THE REGIONALIZATION OF PRICES, A MARKET FOR THEIR CEREALS AT REASONABLE PRICES WHERE THERE ARE NO MARKETS AVAILABLE PROVIDING NORMAL PROFIT MARGINS . WHILST ARTICLE 1 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 132/67 PROVIDES THAT ALL OFFERS FOR INTERVENTION SHALL BE MADE TO AN INTERVENTION AGENCY IN RESPECT OF A MARKETING CENTRE CHOSEN FROM AMONG THE THREE CENTRES NEAREST TO THE PLACE WHERE THE CEREALS ARE WHEN THE OFFER IS MADE, IT ASSUMES THAT AT THE PLACE WHERE THE GOODS ARE IT HAS NOT BEEN POSSIBLE TO MARKET THEM UNDER CONDITIONS OF NORMAL PROFIT MARGINS . SUCH A PRECAUTION, INSPIRED BY THE DESIRE TO SET UP AS EFFICIENT AND INEXPENSIVE AN ORGANIZATION AS POSSIBLE OF THE INTERVENTION SYSTEM, IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO AVOID ANY INDUCEMENT TO TRANSPORT THE GOODS WITH THE SOLE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING MORE FAVOURABLE INTERVENTION CONDITIONS .
4 ACCORDINGLY, THE APPLICATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION OF 8 MAY 1969 TO OFFERS TO INTERVENTION OF CEREALS HARVESTED IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE OF THE COMMUNITY WHICH AT THAT TIME WERE IN TRANSIT TO THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE INTERVENTION SYSTEM AND DOES NOT, AS WAS ARGUED BY THE RESPONDENT IN THE NATIONAL PROCEEDINGS, CONSTITUTE AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PROTECTION OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL, BUT A JUSTIFIED PRECAUTION AGAINST PURELY SPECULATIVE ACTIVITIES . BESIDES, SUCH AN APPLICATION DOES NOT WITHHOLD FROM THE CEREALS IN QUESTION THE BENEFITS OF THE INTERVENTION SYSTEM, SINCE AN OFFER TO INTERVENTION AT THE MARKETING CENTRES OF THE MEMBER STATE WHERE THE CEREALS WERE AT THE TIME REMAINS PERFECTLY POSSIBLE, AS WAS THE CASE BEFORE THEY WERE CONSIGNED TO THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY .
5 ACCORDINGLY, THE ANSWER MUST BE THAT DECISION 69/13/EEC OF THE COMMISSION OF 8 MAY 1969 AUTHORIZING THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY TO LIMIT ITS PURCHASES OF CERTAIN CEREALS ALSO APPLIES TO CEREALS HARVESTED IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE OF THE COMMUNITY WHICH EITHER ON 2 OR 8 MAY WERE IN TRANSIT TO THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH AN OFFER TO INTERVENTION IN PROPER FORM WAS NOT MADE UNTIL AFTER THAT DATE .