<s>[INST] The next text is a question of a member of the European parliament:"The decision taken by the EU Heads of State and Government to introduce 20% voluntary modulation of CAP support in the period 2007‑13 did not take account of the impact that this measure might have on farmers' income and ability to compete.  The EU Court of Justice recently ruled against the cotton reform and called for it to be annulled on the grounds that the decision did not comply with the Community principle of ‘proportionality’. According to a study carried out by the CEPS (Centre for European Policy Studies), voluntary modulation may jeopardise many farms' ability to compete. Furthermore, a report drawn up by Parliament's legal services has shown that this voluntary modulation may give rise to different treatment for farmers from different Member States. The report also adds that the decision was not accompanied by any objective criterion which could justify this different treatment, as required by the case-law of the Court of Justice. The legal opinion points out that such discrimination contravenes Article34 of the ECTreaty.  In the light of the above, does the Commission believe that there could be sufficient legal arguments to contest the decision on voluntary modulation, were it to be applied in a Member State?"
Analyze carefully the text and assign it to the most relevant policy area among those listed below. Do not explain your answer and return only a number.
Policy area numbers: 1 = Macroeconomics
2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties
3 = Health
4 = Agriculture and Fisheries
5 = Labour, employment and pensions
6 = Education
7 = Environment
8 = Energy
9 = Immigration
10 = Transportation
12 = Law and Crime
13 = Social welfare
14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning
15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues
16 = Defence
17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues
18 = Foreign trade
19 = International affairs and foreign aid
20 = Governance and government
21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues
23 = Culture and media
[/INST]. Answer = [4]. </s>
The decision taken by the EU Heads of State and Government to introduce 20% voluntary modulation of CAP support in the period 2007‑13 did not take account of the impact that this measure might have on farmers' income and ability to compete.  The EU Court of Justice recently ruled against the cotton reform and called for it to be annulled on the grounds that the decision did not comply with the Community principle of ‘proportionality’. According to a study carried out by the CEPS (Centre for European Policy Studies), voluntary modulation may jeopardise many farms' ability to compete. Furthermore, a report drawn up by Parliament's legal services has shown that this voluntary modulation may give rise to different treatment for farmers from different Member States. The report also adds that the decision was not accompanied by any objective criterion which could justify this different treatment, as required by the case-law of the Court of Justice. The legal opinion points out that such discrimination contravenes Article34 of the ECTreaty.  In the light of the above, does the Commission believe that there could be sufficient legal arguments to contest the decision on voluntary modulation, were it to be applied in a Member State?