OF THE MARKET HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED ARE SUBJECT TO THE GENERAL RULES OF THE COMMON MARKET WITH REGARD TO IMPORTATION , EXPORTATION AND MOVEMENT WITHIN THE COMMUNITY . A MEMBER STATE MAY NOT THEREFORE RELY ON THE SPECIAL RULES OF ARTICLE 39 ET SEQ ., THE PURPOSE OF WHICH IS TO DEFINE THE BASIS OF A COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY , IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH OR TO MAINTAIN ON ITS TERRITORY PROVISIONS DEROGATING FROM THE PRINCIPLES OF THE COMMON MARKET IN RESPECT OF A PRODUCT NOT SUBJECT TO A COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET .
24 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THOSE PRINCIPLES , LAID DOWN IN ARTICLES 9 , 10 AND 30 OF THE TREATY , THE MEASURES INTENDED TO FREE INTRA-COMMUNITY TRADE ARE APPLICABLE , AS THE COURT POINTED OUT IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 15 DECEMBER 1976 ( DONCKERWOLCKE , CITED ABOVE ), WITHOUT DISTINCTION TO PRODUCTS ORIGINATING IN THE MEMBER STATES AND TO THOSE COMING FROM NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES WHICH HAVE BEEN PUT INTO ' FREE CIRCULATION ' IN THE COMMUNITY . ONCE THE LATTER PRODUCTS HAVE BEEN DULY IMPORTED INTO THE COMMUNITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS IN FORCE RELATING TO TARIFFS AND TRADE , THEY ARE , AS THE COURT EMPHASIZED , ' DEFINITIVELY AND WHOLLY ASSIMILATED TO PRODUCTS ORIGINATING IN MEMBER STATES ' ( JUDGMENT CITED ABOVE , PARAGRAPH 17 ).
25 THOSE CONSIDERATIONS ALSO APPLY TO PRODUCTS IMPORTED INTO THE COMMUNITY UNDER A COMMUNITY QUOTA EVEN IF THAT QUOTA IS MORE PARTICULARLY INTENDED FOR THE MARKET OF A SPECIFIC MEMBER STATE EITHER BY VIRTUE OF AN AGREEMENT OR OF A LATER ALLOCATION . ONCE GOODS FORMING PART OF SUCH A QUOTA HAVE BEEN DULY IMPORTED INTO THE MEMBER STATE OF DESTINATION , THEY ARE ASSIMILATED TO THE PRODUCTS WHICH ARE IN FREE CIRCULATION IN THAT STATE AND IT MUST THEREFORE BE POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO BE IMPORTED WITHOUT HINDRANCE INTO THE OTHER MEMBER STATES , EXCEPT WHERE AN EXPRESS PROVISION TO THE CONTRARY HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY A COMPETENT INSTITUTION OF THE COMMUNITY .
26 WITH REGARD TO THE POSSIBLE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 115 OF THE TREATY TO A SITUATION OF THIS KIND , THE COMMISSION POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO CONSIDER THAT QUESTION BECAUSE IRELAND HAD NOT REQUESTED SUCH AN APPLICATION AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME . IRELAND ' S ARGUMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE MEASURE ADOPTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT TO A DEROGATION OF THE KIND WHICH MIGHT BE GRANTED UNDER ARTICLE 115 MUST BE REJECTED , PARTICULARLY SINCE A MEMBER STATE MAY NOT ACT UNILATERALLY IN THAT RESPECT .
27 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT IRELAND WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ADOPT UNILATERALLY A PROTECTIVE MEASURE DEFINED IN TERMS WHICH ENABLE IT TO LIMIT THE IMPORTATION OF POTATOES ORIGINATING IN NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES AND IN FREE CIRCULATION IN THE COMMUNITY . IT IS OF LITTLE IMPORTANCE WHETHER THAT MEASURE CONCERNS PRODUCTS SUBJECT TO THE GENERAL RULES LAID DOWN IN THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS RELATING TO TARIFFS AND TRADE OR PRODUCTS SUBJECT TO SPECIAL