TREATY; ARTICLE 5 IMPOSED ON MEMBER STATES SPECIAL DUTIES OF ACTION AND ABSTENSION WHERE THE COMMISSION, IN ORDER TO MEET URGENTCONSERVATION NEEDS, HAD SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL PROPOSALS WHICH, ALTHOUGH THEY WERE NOT ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL, REPRESENTED A BASIS FOR CONCERTED COMMUNITY ACTION . THE COURT ALSO DECLARED THAT THIS WAS A FIELD RESERVED TO THE POWERS OF THE COMMUNITY, WITHIN WHICH MEMBER STATES MIGHT HENCEFORTH ACT ONLY AS TRUSTEES OF THE COMMON INTEREST; MEMBER STATES COULD NOT, THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF APPROPRIATE ACTION ON THE PART OF THE COUNCIL, BRING INTO FORCE ANY INTERIM CONSERVATION MEASURES WHICH MIGHT BE REQUIRED BY THE SITUATION EXCEPT AS PART OF A PROCESS OF COLLABORATION WITH THE COMMISSION . MEMBER STATES HAD A DUTY NOT TO LAY DOWN NATIONAL CONSERVATION MEASURES INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE OBJECTIONS, RESERVATIONS OR CONDITIONS WHICH MIGHT BE FORMULATED BY THE COMMISSION .
16 THE COURT THUS ACCEPTED THAT WHERE THE COUNCIL HAD FAILED TO ADOPT THE CONSERVATION MEASURES NECESSARY TO PROTECT FISH STOCKS SUCH MEASURES, DESIGNED TO ANSWER URGENT NEEDS, MIGHT BE AGREED UPON BY MEANS OF A PROCESS OF COOPERATION BETWEEN THE MEMBER STATES AND THE COMMISSION IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE COMMUNITY TO MEET ITS RESPONSIBILITIES .
17 IT IS COMMON GROUND THAT NO SUCH PROCESS OF COOPERATION WAS INITIATED IN 1982 BETWEEN THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS AND THE COMMISSION SINCE THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS DID NOT RESPOND TO THE COMMISSION' S INVITATION TO ADOPT THE MEASURES NEEDED TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROPOSALS . IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND WITHOUT ITS BEING NECESSARY TO RULE ON THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THAT LACK OF COOPERATION ON THE PART OF A MEMBER STATE, IT MUST BE FOUND THAT THE PROPOSALS UNILATERALLY MADE BY THE COMMISSION IN RELATION TO THE FISHING QUOTAS TO BE ALLOCATED TO THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS CANNOT, AS THE COURT HELD IN ITS JUDGMENT OF TODAY IN CASE 326/85 KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS V COMMISSION ( CITED ABOVE ) BE REGARDED AS COMMUNITY RULES WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLES 2 AND 3 OF REGULATION NO 729/70, DISREGARD OF WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THE COMMISSION' S REFUSAL TO CHARGE TO THE FUND THE REFUNDS AT ISSUE .
18 IT IS STILL NECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE CONTESTED DECISION OF THE COMMISSION MAY BE JUSTIFIED BY REGULATION NO 172/83 WHICH ENTERED INTO FORCE ON 27 JANUARY 1983 AND DETERMINED RETROACTIVELY THE FISHING QUOTAS FOR 1982 .
19 IN THAT RESPECT IT IS NECESSARY TO POINT OUT THAT, AS THE COURT HAS REPEATEDLY HELD, COMMUNITY LEGISLATION MUST BE CERTAIN AND ITS APPLICATION FORESEEABLE BY THOSE SUBJECT TO IT . THAT REQUIREMENT OF LEGAL CERTAINTY MUST BE OBSERVED ALL THE MORE STRICTLY IN THE CASE OF RULES LIABLE TO ENTAIL FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES, IN ORDER THAT THOSE CONCERNED MAY KNOW PRECISELY THE EXTENT OF THE OBLIGATIONS WHICH THEY IMPOSE ON THEM .
20 IN THE PRESENT CASE, WHEN THE REFUNDS AT ISSUE WERE GRANTED THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS WAS NOT IN A POSITION EITHER TO KNOW