OF THE DEFENDANT AND THE INTERVENER IN THE MAIN ACTION ON THE ONE HAND , AND THOSE OF THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT AND THE COMMISSION ON THE OTHER , THAT THEY ARE IN DISAGREEMENT OVER THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PRICE COMMITTEE ORDER AT ISSUE IS TO BE REGARDED AS ' ' A SPECIFIC MEASURE INVOLVING INTERVENTION IN THE MACHINERY OF PRICE FORMATION ' ' AS ENVISAGED BY THE JUDGMENT CITED .
7 ACCORDING TO THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT AND THE COMMISSION , THE ORDER ONLY PROVIDED FOR A CHARGE TO BE PAID ON STOCKS ON 5 JULY 1978 AND CALCULATED EXCLUSIVELY ON THE BASIS OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE NEW NATIONAL PRICES AND THOSE PREVIOUSLY IN FORCE ' ' WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE AMOUNT OF THE INCREASE IN PRODUCER PRICES LAID DOWN AT COMMUNITY LEVEL FOR THE 1978/1979 MARKETING YEAR ' ' .
8IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER WAS RESTRICTED TO THE DISTRIBUTION AND CONSUMPTION STAGES AND AVOIDED REFERENCE TO SUGAR HELD IN STOCK BY PRODUCERS PRECISELY SO AS NOT TO AFFECT IN ANY WAY THE MACHINERY OF PRICE FORMATION RESULTING FROM THE OPERATION OF COMMUNITY RULES .
9ON THE OTHER HAND , ACCORDING TO THE DEFENDANT AND THE INTERVENER IN THE MAIN ACTION , THE INCREASES IN NATIONAL PRICES REFERRED TO IN THE ORDER ARE CLOSELY CONNECTED WITH THE INCREASES IN COMMUNITY PRICES , SO THAT IN FACT THE CHARGE IMPOSED CONSTITUTES A MEASURE INVOLVING INTERVENTION .
10WITHIN THE FRAME-WORK OF THE PROCEDURE UNDER ARTICLE 177 , IT IS NOT FOR THE COURT TO APPLY THE COMMUNITY RULES WHICH IT HAS INTERPRETED TO NATIONAL MEASURES OR SITUATIONS .
11ON THE OTHER HAND IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE NATIONAL COURTS TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THE COMMUNITY RULE AS INTERPRETED BY THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 APPLIES TO THE FACTS AND MEASURES WHICH ARE BROUGHT BEFORE THEM FOR THEIR ASSESSMENT .
12A DISPUTE SUCH AS THE ONE OUTLINED ABOVE IS THEREFORE A MATTER TO BE ASSESSED BY THE NATIONAL COURT .
13MOREOVER , NEITHER THE QUESTION RAISED NOR THE OBSERVATIONS SUBMITTED IN THE COURSE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS RAISE ANY NEW ISSUES GIVING GROUNDS FOR CLARIFYING OR SUPPLEMENTING THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE JUDGMENT OF 25 MAY 1977 .
14THEREFORE THE ANSWER TO QUESTION 1 SHOULD BE IN TERMS IDENTICAL TO THOSE OF THE OPERATIVE PART OF THAT JUDGMENT .
15AS TO QUESTION 2 , IT PRESUPPOSES AN ANSWER IN THE AFFIRMATIVE TO QUESTION 1 .
16IF IT WERE ESTABLISHED THAT THE MEASURE REFERRED TO DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE MACHINERY OF PRICE FORMATION COVERED BY THE COMMUNITY RULES AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN INTERVENTION IN THAT MACHINERY , IT WOULD FOLLOW THAT ARTICLE 40 OF THE TREATY , WHICH APPLIES ONLY TO THE AREAS COVERED BY COMMUNITY LAW , WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE .
17EVEN IF IT WERE WITHIN THE AMBIT OF ARTICLE 40 , A MEASURE WHICH , AS REGARDS PRICE FORMATION , DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN THE PRODUCTION STAGE AND SUBSEQUENT STAGES OF MARKETING WOULD NOT BY VIRTUE OF