COMMON MARKET .
112 THEREFORE IT APPEARS THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AT THE TIME THE COMMISSION USED THE MEANS AT ITS DISPOSAL AND THAT IT CANNOT BE ACCUSED OF HAVING MADE NO EFFORT TO PROHIBIT SUCH IMPORTS FROM MAY 1977 , ESPECIALLY SINCE SUCH A PROHIBITION COULD BE LAID DOWN ONLY WITHIN A NEGOTIATED SYSTEM .
113 NONE THE LESS , THE FACT REMAINS THAT IMPORTS FROM NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES DISTURBED THE MARKET TEMPORARILY , INFLUENCING PRICES IN PARTICULAR , AND MORE SO AS CERTAIN COMMUNITY UNDERTAKINGS CLAIM TO HAVE ALIGNED THEIR PRICES ON OFFERS BELOW THE MINIMUM PRICES ORIGINATING IN NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES , SUCH OFFERS BEING LAWFUL .
114 IT MUST BE BORNE IN MIND THAT ARTICLE 6 ( 2 ) OF DECISION NO 962/77 WAS ALREADY DESIGNED TO DEAL WITH SUCH ALIGNMENTS ON OFFERS FOR CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT BARS FROM ANY COUNTRY WHICH IS NOT A MEMBER STATE OF THE COMMUNITY , WHICH ARE AUTHORIZED ONLY IN SO FAR AS THE DELIVERED PRICES ARE NOT LOWER THAN THE DELIVERED PRICES ' ' BASED ON A MORE FAVOURABLE COMMUNITY PRICE LIST ' ' ; IN EFFECT , THEREFORE , THAT PROVISION PREVENTED SALES BELOW THE MINIMUM PRICES , SINCE ALL COMMUNITY PRICE LISTS HAD TO CONTAIN PRICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH DECISION NO 962/77 .
115 DESPITE THAT ARTICLE , IT SEEMS THAT ALIGNMENTS WERE CARRIED OUT BELOW THE MINIMUM PRICES SINCE IN THE SECOND RECITAL OF THE PREAMBLE TO DECISION NO 527/78 THE COMMISSION ADMITTED THAT EXPERIENCE HAD SHOWN THAT COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE MINIMUM PRICES COULD NOT BE SECURED IF OFFERS AT LOWER PRICES AND FOR ONLY SMALL QUANTITIES COULD BE USED AS A BASIS FOR ALIGNMENTS AND THAT IT WAS THAT EXPERIENCE WHICH MADE IT NECESSARY TO ABOLISH THE OPTION OF ALIGNMENT ON OFFERS ORIGINATING IN CERTAIN NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES .
116 CONSEQUENTLY , IT MUST BE ACCEPTED THAT THE DE FACTO TOLERANCE OF ALIGNMENTS ON OFFERS IN RESPECT OF SMALL QUANTITIES ORIGINATING IN NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES , TOGETHER WITH THE ABSENCE OF RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTS , MUST BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN A DEFECT IN THE MINIMUM PRICES SYSTEM .
( B ) THE DISPROPORTIONATE NATURE OF THE SACRIFICES DEMANDED , IN VIEW OF THE OMISSIONS THUS DISCLOSED
117 IT IS NOW NECESSARY TO EXAMINE WHETHER IN VIEW OF THE OMISSIONS ESTABLISHED THE OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED UPON THE UNDERTAKINGS CAST DISPROPORTIONATE BURDENS UPON THE APPLICANTS WHICH WOULD CONSTITUTE AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY . IN REPLY TO THE APPLICANTS ' ALLEGATIONS ON THIS MATTER , THE COMMISSION STATES THAT THE VALIDITY OF A GENERAL DECISION CANNOT DEPEND ON THE EXISTENCE OR ABSENCE OF OTHER FORMALLY INDEPENDENT DECISIONS .
118 THAT ARGUMENT IS NOT RELEVANT IN THIS CASE AND THE COURT MUST INQUIRE WHETHER THE DEFECTS ESTABLISHED IMPOSED DISPROPORTIONATE BURDENS UPON THE APPLICANTS , HAVING REGARD TO THE OBJECTIVES LAID DOWN BY DECISION NO 962/77 . BUT THE COURT HAS ALREADY RECOGNIZED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 24 OCTOBER 1973 IN CASE 5/73 , BALKAN-IMPORT-EXPORT V HAUPTZOLLAMT