SITUATION ".
30 IT IS CLEAR FROM ARTICLE 107 THAT IT IS FOR EACH MEMBER STATE TO DECIDE UPON ANY ALTERATION IN THE RATE OF EXCHANGE OF ITS CURRENCY UNDER THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY THAT PROVISION .
31 IF SUCH AN ALTERATION PUTS IMPORTERS AND EXPORTERS IN THE STATE CONCERNED IN A POSITION DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THEIR OPPOSITE NUMBERS IN OTHER MEMBER STATES, THIS DISPARITY IS THE RESULT OF THE ACTUAL DECISION OF THAT MEMBER STATE AND NOT OF COMMUNITY INTERVENTION .
32 ALTHOUGH THE POWERS CONFERRED ON THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS BY THE TREATY, IN PARTICULAR BY ARTICLE 103 ( 2 ) THEREOF, PURSUANT TO WHICH THE COUNCIL ADOPTED REGULATIONS NOS 1586/69 AND 1432/70, INCLUDE THE POWER TO ALLEVIATE, IN THE COMMON INTEREST, CERTAIN EFFECTS OF A DEVALUATION OR OF A REVALUATION, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE COUNCIL MUST COMPENSATE FOR ALL THESE EFFECTS IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE ADVERSE TO THE IMPORTERS OR EXPORTERS OF THE MEMBER STATE CONCERNED .
33 IN FACT, BY EMPOWERING THE COUNCIL TO " DECIDE UPON THE MEASURES APPROPRIATE TO THE SITUATION ", WITHOUT OBLIGING IT TO DO SO, ARTICLE 103 CONFERRED ON THAT INSTITUTION A WIDE POWER OF DISCRETION TO BE EXERCISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE " COMMON INTEREST " AND NOT WITH THE INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS OF A SPECIFIC GROUP OF TRADERS .
34 THE APPLICANTS HAVE NOT PROVED OR OFFERED EVIDENCE THAT IN THIS CASE THE COMMON INTEREST REQUIRED THAT THERE SHOULD BE FULL COMPENSATION FOR THE INCREASE IN THE PRICE OF CEREALS FROM THIRD COUNTRIES IMPORTED INTO FRANCE AS A RESULT OF THE DEVALUATION OF THE FRENCH FRANC .
35 IT FOLLOWS FROM ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE COMPLAINT THAT ARTICLE 40 HAS BEEN INFRINGED MUST BE DISMISSED .
36 C - FINALLY, THE APPLICANTS CLAIM TO BE THE VICTIMS OF FURTHER DISCRIMINATION ON THE GROUND THAT REGULATION NO 1014/71 OF THE COMMISSION OF 17 MAY 1971 ADOPTED AS A RESULT OF THE TEMPORARY WIDENING OF THE MARGINS OF FLUCTUATION FOR THE CURRENCIES OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY AND OF THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS, FIXED THE COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS WHICH THOSE STATES WERE AUTHORIZED TO GRANT ON EXPORTS TO THIRD COUNTRIES AT A LEVEL WHICH TOOK INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE EFFECTS OF THE SAID WIDENING ON EXPORT PRICES .
37 THEY CLAIM THAT, CONSEQUENTLY, THE COMMISSION TREATED GERMAN AND NETHERLANDS EXPORTERS MORE FAVOURABLY THAN FRENCH IMPORTERS WITHOUT GOOD REASON .
38 THIS SUBMISSION MAY ALSO BE UNDERSTOOD AS A CRITICISM OF THE FACT THAT, IN ADOPTING REGULATION NO 1014/71, THE COMMISSION DID NOT RECONSIDER REGULATIONS NOS 1670/69 AND 1505/70, THE INADEQUACY OF WHICH WAS RECOGNIZED BY IMPLICATION .
39 THE VALIDITY OF A REGULATION CANNOT BE CALLED IN QUESTION BECAUSE OF EVENTS WHICH TOOK PLACE AT A LATER DATE .
40 MOREOVER, THE REGULATIONS WHICH FORM THE BASIS OF THIS CASE REFER TO A SITUATION DIFFERENT FROM THAT TO WHICH THOSE REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE GERMAN AND NETHERLANDS CURRENCY FLUCTUATIONS REFER .
41 THE ECONOMIC SITUATIONS