1982 IN CASE 307/81 , ALUSUISSE ITALIA V COUNCIL AND COMMISSION , ( 1982 ) ECR 3463 , AN ACTION BROUGHT BY AN INDIVIDUAL IS NOT ADMISSIBLE IN SO FAR AS IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST A REGULATION HAVING GENERAL APPLICATION , WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 189 OF THE TREATY , THE TEST FOR DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN A REGULATION AND A DECISION , ACCORDING TO THE SETTLED CASE-LAW OF THE COURT , BEING WHETHER OR NOT THE MEASURE IN QUESTION HAS GENERAL APPLICATION . IT IS THEREFORE NECESSARY TO APPRAISE THE NATURE OF THE CONTESTED MEASURE AND IN PARTICULAR THE LEGAL EFFECTS WHICH IT IS INTENDED TO PRODUCE OR IN FACT PRODUCES .
13 IN THAT CONNECTION IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE CONTESTED PROVISION IS TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF CERTAIN TRANSLATIONS BY ANY UNDERTAKINGS WHICH AT PRESENT OR IN THE FUTURE IMPORT WINES OF THE RELEVANT TYPE INTO THE COMMUNITY FROM NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES . CONSEQUENTLY , VIS-A-VIS IMPORTERS , THAT MEASURE IS OF GENERAL APPLICATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 189 OF THE TREATY , SINCE IT APPLIES TO OBJECTIVELY DETERMINED SITUATIONS AND ENTAILS LEGAL EFFECTS FOR CATEGORIES OF PERSONS REGARDED GENERALLY AND IN THE ABSTRACT . MOREOVER , AS THE COURT HAS ALREADY HELD , A MEASURE DOES NOT CEASE TO BE A REGULATION BECAUSE IT IS POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE THE NUMBER OR EVEN THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM IT APPLIES AT ANY GIVEN TIME .
14 FINALLY , AS THE COURT HAS ALREADY HELD , THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A REGULATION AND A DECISION MAY BE BASED ONLY ON THE NATURE OF THE MEASURE ITSELF AND THE LEGAL EFFECTS WHICH IT PRODUCES AND NOT ON THE PROCEDURES FOR ITS ADOPTION .
15 FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE IT MUST BE CONCLUDED THAT ARTICLE 1 ( 3 ) ( G ) OF REGULATION NO 1224/83 IS NOT OF INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THE APPLICANT AND HENCE THE LATTER MAY NOT CHALLENGE IT UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE TREATY . CONSEQUENTLY , THE CLAIM FOR A DECLARATION THAT IT IS VOID MUST BE DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE .
THE ALTERNATIVE CLAIM SEEKING TO ESTABLISH THE LIABILITY OF THE COMMISSION
16 THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT , EVEN IF THE COURT WERE NOT TO DECLARE ARTICLE 1 ( 3 ) ( G ) VOID , THE FACT WOULD REMAIN THAT THE PROVISION SERIOUSLY AFFECTS THE ' TRADE WHICH IT HAS ESTABLISHED AND CARRIES ON ' . IT ALLEGES THAT THE FAVOURABLE OPINION EXPRESSED BY THE COMMISSION ON 14 AUGUST 1981 WITH REGARD TO THE USE OF THE TERMS ' SPATGELESEN ' AND ' AUSGELESEN ' PROMPTED IT TO COMMIT CONSIDERABLE FUNDS TO IMPORTING AND MARKETING HUNGARIAN AND YUGOSLAVIAN WINES IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY . IT CLAIMS THAT THE COMMUNITY IS THEREFORE OBLIGED TO COMPENSATE IT FOR THAT DAMAGE . IT CONSIDERS THAT , GIVEN THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE ACCURATELY TO ESTIMATE THE EXACT AMOUNT OF