AND ( 3 ) AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN THEREIN , ACCOUNT BEING TAKEN OF THE OBJECTIVES SET OUT IN ARTICLE 39 . ' '
THAT SIMULTANEOUSLY RECOGNIZES THE PRECEDENCE THE AGRICULTURAL POLICY HAS OVER THE AIMS OF THE TREATY IN RELATION TO COMPETITION AND THE POWER OF THE COUNCIL TO DECIDE HOW FAR THE RULES ON COMPETITION SHOULD APPLY TO THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR . THE COUNCIL HAS A WIDE DISCRETION IN THE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER AS IT HAS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WHOLE AGRICULTURAL POLICY .
24 AS CONSIDERATION OF THE CONTESTED MEASURES SHOWS , THE EFFECTS WHICH THEY MAY PERHAPS HAVE ON COMPETITION ARE THE UNAVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCE OF THE LEGITIMATE DESIRE OF THE COUNCIL TO LIMIT ISOGLUCOSE PRODUCTION . THE MEASURES MOREOVER PERMIT SOME COMPETITION TO CONTINUE IN RESPECT OF PRICE , TERMS OF SALE AND THE QUALITY OF ISOGLUCOSE . THE COUNCIL HAS THEREFORE NOT EXCEEDED ITS DISCRETION .
BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY
25 THE APPLICANT MAINTAINS THAT IN ESTABLISHING A SYSTEM OF QUOTAS FOR ISOGLUCOSE THE COUNCIL CHOSE THE MOST RESTRICTIVE MEANS OF ACTION WHICH MEANT THAT THE APPLICANT COULD NOT RATIONALLY EXPLOIT ITS PRODUCTION CAPACITY . ON THE OTHER HAND NO MEASURE HAS BEEN TAKEN AGAINST THE SUGAR INDUSTRY . THE BURDENS THUS UNILATERALLY PLACED ON THE ISOGLUCOSE INDUSTRY BREACH THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY .
26 IN THE FIRST PLACE THE APPLICANT CANNOT CLAIM THAT THE COUNCIL HAS MADE THE RATIONAL USE OF THE APPLICANT ' S PRODUCTION CAPACITY IMPOSSIBLE WHEN ITS ACTUAL PRODUCTION HAS NOT EVEN ATTAINED THE MAXIMUM QUOTA ALLOWED IT . FURTHER , HERE TOO THE REAL PROBLEM IS WHETHER IN ADOPTING THE MEASURES WHICH IT TOOK THE COUNCIL EXCEEDED THE LIMITS OF THE DISCRETION WHICH IT HAS . THAT IS NOT SO AS APPEARS FROM THE PREVIOUS CONSIDERATIONS . IT MUST MOREOVER BE STRESSED IN THAT RESPECT THAT IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY , AS DOES THE APPLICANT , THAT NO RESTRICTIVE MEASURE HAS BEEN TAKEN WITH REGARD TO THE SUGAR INDUSTRY AND IN ANY EVENT THE POSSIBILITIES FOR ACTION WITH REGARD TO THAT INDUSTRY ARE LIMITED BY THE NEED FOR THE COUNCIL TO ENSURE A FAIR STANDARD OF LIVING FOR THE AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY WHICH IS ONE OF THE OBJECTIVES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 39 ( 1 ) ( B ) OF THE TREATY .
ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ISOGLUCOSE MANUFACTURERS VIS-A-VIS SUGAR MANUFACTURERS
27 THE APPLICANT COMPLAINS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ISOGLUCOSE MANUFACTURERS . ALTHOUGH ISOGLUCOSE MANUFACTURERS AND SUGAR MANUFACTURERS ARE IN A COMPARABLE SITUATION ISOGLUCOSE MANUFACTURERS ARE SUBJECT TO A DIFFERENT QUOTA SYSTEM . THE QUOTA SYSTEM APPLIED TO ISOGLUCOSE TAKES ACCOUNT NEITHER OF THE NEED TO MAINTAIN FREE COMPETITION NOR THE FACT THAT SUGAR AND ISOGLUCOSE ARE AT DIFFERENT STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT . THE QUOTAS ARE CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF REFERENCE PERIODS WHICH DO NOT CORRESPOND WITH THOSE APPLYING TO SUGAR AND THE WHOLE SYSTEM LACKS THE FLEXIBILITY WHICH CHARACTERIZES THE SYSTEM FOR SUGAR . FINALLY THE ISOGLUCOSE INDUSTRY DOES NOT