3.8. 85 Official Journal of the European Communities No L 205/5 COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 2220/85 of 22 July 1985 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of securities for agricultural products THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organi- zation of the market in cereals ('), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1018/84 (%), and in particular Articles 7 (5), 8 (4), 12 (2), 15 (3) and (5) and 16 (6) thereof, and the corresponding provisions of the other Regulations on the common organization of the market in respect of agricultural products, and also to other provisions in the Regulations on the common organization of markets which, when applied in prac- tice, provide for a security ; Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 525/77 of 14 March 1977 establishing a system of production aid for tinned pineapple (%), as last amended by Regula- tion (EEC) No 1699/85 (*), and in particular Article 8 thereof, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1079/77 of 17 May 1977 on a co-responsibility levy and on measures for expanding the markets in milk and milk products (°), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1302/85(%), and in particular Article 3 thereof, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2169/81 of 27 July 1981 laying down the general rules for the system of aid for cotton (7), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1462/84 (%), and in particular Article 5 (3) thereof, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82 of 18 May 1982 laying down special measures for peas, field beans and sweet lupins(’), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1485/85 ('), and in particular Article 3 (5) thereof, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1677/85 of 11 June 1985 on monetary compensatory amounts in agriculture ('), and in particular Article 12 thereof, () OJ No L 281, 1. 11. 1975, p. 1. () OJ No L 107, 19. 4. 1984, p. 1. % O] No L 73, 21. 3. 1977, p. 46. () O No L 163, 22. 6. 1985, p. 12. () OJ No L 131, 26. 5. 1977, p. 6. (9 OJ No L 137, 27. 5. 1985, p. 9. O] No L 211, 31. 7. 1981, p. 2. % O] No L 142, 29. 5. 1984, p. 1. 5 OJ No L 162, 12. 6. 1982, p. 28. (% OJ No L 151, 10. 6. 1985, p. 7. (") OJ No L 164, 24. 6. 1985, p. 6. Whereas numerous provisions in Community agricul- tural Regulations require that a security be given to ensure payment of a sum due if an obligation is not met ; whereas, however, experience has shown that this requirement is in practice interpreted in widely diffe- ring fashions; whereas, therefore, in order to avoid unequal competitive conditions, the requirement should be more fully defined; Whereas, in particulaf, the form of the security should be defined ; Whereas many provisions in Community agricultural Regulations provide that the security given is forfeited if any obligation secured is breached, without making any distinction between breaches of fundamental and of secondary or subordinate obligations; whereas in the interests of equity a distinction should be drawn between the consequences of breaching a fundamental obligation and the consequences of breaching a secon- dary or subordinate one ; whereas, in particular, provi- sion should be made, where permissible, for forfeiture of only a part of the security where the fundamental obligation is in fact met but the deadline set for meeting it has been slightly exceeded, or when a secondary or subordinate obligation is not met; Whereas no distinction between the consequences of failure to meet an obligation should be made based on whether or not an advance payment has been received ; whereas, accordingly, secufrities given against advances are covered by separate rules; Whereas the costs of lodging a security, incurred by both the party giving the security and the competent authority, may be out of proportion to the sum whose payment the security guarantees if that sum is below a certain limit; whereas competent authorities must therefore have the right to waive the requirement of a security for payment of a sum below that limit; whereas, further, a competent authority should be empowered to waive the requirement of a security where the nature of the person required to meet the obligations makes that requirement unnecessary ; Whereas a competent authority should have the right to refuse a security offered where it considers it to be unsatisfactory,