' ' , ARTICLE 1 OF REGULATION NO 3191/80 PROVIDES AS HAS BEEN STATED , THAT NOTWITHSTANDING ARTICLE 9 ( 3 ) OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1837/80 , THE AMOUNT REFERRED TO THEREIN IS NOT TO BE CHARGED ON EXPORT OF THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION FROM THE COMMUNITY .
31 INASMUCH AS JULIUS KIND KG COMPLAINS THAT A SIMILAR SUSPENSORY MEASURE HAS NOT BEEN ADOPTED FOR EXPORTS FROM ONE MEMBER STATE TO ANOTHER , ITS APPLICATION IS UNFOUNDED . THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE TREATY AND NO GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF COMMUNITY LAW WHICH REQUIRES MEASURES BASED ON THE NEEDS OF EXPORTS TO NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES TO BE EXTENDED TO TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES . ON THE CONTRARY , FOR THE REASONS ALREADY INDICATED SUSPENSION OF THE CLAW-BACK IN RESPECT OF EXPORTS FROM A MEMBER STATE IN WHICH PRODUCERS ARE PAID THE VARIABLE SLAUGHTER PREMIUM TO ANOTHER MEMBER STATE WHERE THAT PREMIUM IS NOT PAID COULD DISTURB THE COMMUNITY MARKETS IN MUTTON , LAMB AND GOAT ' S MEAT WHICH REGULATION NO 1837/80 IS DESIGNED TO STABILIZE .
32 IN SO FAR AS JULIUS KIND KG SEEKS TO ARGUE THAT THE COMMISSION ' S SUSPENSION OF THE CLAW-BACK ON EXPORTS FROM THE COMMUNITY DAMAGED ITS EXPORTS TO NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES , INASMUCH AS REGULATION NO 3191/80 MADE IT MORE ADVANTAGEOUS FOR SUCH COUNTRIES TO OBTAIN THEIR SUPPLIES DIRECTLY FROM A COUNTRY SUCH AS THE UNITED KINGDOM IN WHICH THE SLAUGHTER PREMIUM AND , THEREFORE , THE CLAW-BACK WERE APPLIED , IT MUST BE NOTED THAT ONE OF THE CONDITIONS GOVERNING LIABILITY ON THE PART OF THE COMMUNITY IS THAT THE APPLICANT SEEKING COMPENSATION MUST HAVE ACTUALLY SUFFERED DAMAGE .
33 IN THIS INSTANCE THE APPLICANT ' S ALLEGATIONS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE SUSPENSION OF THE CLAW-BACK ON EXPORTS TO NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES DEFLECTED TRADE TO ITS DETRIMENT SINCE ITS CUSTOMERS - THE SWISS , IN PARTICULAR - TRANSFERRED THEIR CUSTOM TO BRITISH SUPPLIERS , ARE DEVOID OF SUBSTANCE .
34 AN EXAMINATION OF BOTH THE FILE ON THE CASE AND THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE APPLICANT AT THE HEARING SHOW THAT IT HAD NOT BUILT UP ANY FIRMLY ESTABLISHED MARKET IN THE COUNTRIES WHICH WERE NOT MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY . IN THE CASE OF THE SWISS MARKET , IN PARTICULAR , WHICH IS THE SOLE CONCRETE EXAMPLE GIVEN OF THE EXPANSION OF ITS BUSINESS OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY , THE APPLICANT HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT IT DID NOT SEEK TO PENETRATE THE SWISS MARKET UNTIL SEPTEMBER 1980 . NOR HAS IT BEEN ESTABLISHED , OR EVEN , IN FACT , MAINTAINED , THAT THE APPLICANT HAD ACQUIRED REGULAR CUSTOMERS THERE BEFORE THE INTRODUCTION OF REGULATION NO 3191/80 . AS A RESULT IT MUST BE HELD THAT THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO FURNISH EVEN THE BEGINNINGS OF PROOF IN SUPPORT OF ITS ALLEGATIONS THAT THE COMMISSION ' S CONDUCT CAUSED IT TO INCUR A LOSS AND THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE OTHER CONDITIONS GOVERNING LIABILITY ON THE PART