SET OF CONDITIONS IS FULFILLED AS REGARDS THE UNLAWFULNESS OF THE ACTS ALLEGED AGAINST THE INSTITUTIONS , THE FACT OF DAMAGE AND THE EXISTENCE OF A DIRECT LINK IN THE CHAIN OF CAUSALITY BETWEEN THE WRONGFUL ACT AND THE DAMAGE COMPLAINED OF .
10 DEALING WITH THE FIRST OF THOSE CONDITIONS THE COURT HELD , INTER ALIA , IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 25 MAY 1978 ( JOINED CASES 83 AND 94/76 , 4 , 15 AND 40/77 HNL V COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ( 1978 ) ECR 1209 ), THAT THE COMMUNITY DOES NOT INCUR LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF A LEGISLATIVE MEASURE WHICH INVOLVES CHOICES OF ECONOMIC POLICY UNLESS A SUFFICIENTLY SERIOUS BREACH OF A SUPERIOR RULE OF LAW FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL HAS OCCURRED .
11 IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT IN THIS CASE THE MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE DEFENDANT INSTITUTIONS WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED THE DAMAGE OF WHICH THE APPLICANTS COMPLAIN ARE LEGISLATIVE IN CHARACTER AND INVOLVE CHOICES OF ECONOMIC POLICY . IT IS THEREFORE NECESSARY TO BEGIN BY CONSIDERING WHETHER THE CONDITIONS POSTULATED IN THE COURT ' S CASE-LAW IN ORDER FOR THE COMMUNITY TO BE HELD LIABLE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES ARE FULFILLED .
12 IN THAT CONNECTION THE APPLICANTS ' CONTENTION THAT ARTICLE 7 OF THE TREATY HAS BEEN INFRINGED SHOULD IMMEDIATELY BE RULED OUT . AS THE DEFENDANT INSTITUTIONS HAVE RIGHTLY CONTENDED , IN APPLYING THE SYSTEM OF M.C.A.S NO DISTINCTION IS MADE BETWEEN TRADERS ON GROUNDS OF NATIONALITY . THUS ARTICLE 7 AND THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF NATIONALITY CONTAINED THEREIN ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THIS DISPUTE .
13 AS FOR THE ALLEGATION OF AN INFRINGEMENT OF ARTICLE 39 ( 1 ) ( B ) AND ( C ) OF THE TREATY , THE APPLICANTS ASSERT THAT THE APPLICATION OF M.C.A.S TO THE PIGMEAT SECTOR IS CONTRARY TO THE OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY SET FORTH IN THAT ARTICLE , NAMELY TO ENSURE BY THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT POLICY A FAIR STANDARD OF LIVING FOR THE AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY AND TO STABILIZE MARKETS .
14 THE APPLICANTS ARGUE , FIRST , THAT THE MAINTENANCE OF M.C.A.S FOR PIGMEAT HAD THE EFFECT OF UPSETTING THE MARKETS BY CAUSING DISTORTIONS IN COMPETITION AND DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN PRODUCERS IN DIFFERENT MEMBER STATES . THE APPLICANTS EMPHASIZE THAT , SINCE M.C.A.S HAVE BEEN APPLIED , PRODUCERS IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY AND THE NETHERLANDS - COUNTRIES WITH POSITIVE M.C.A.S - HAVE CONSIDERABLY INCREASED THEIR SHARE OF THE COMMUNITY MARKET , THEREBY HARMING FRENCH PRODUCERS .
15 THE DEFENDANT INSTITUTIONS BEGIN BY OBSERVING THAT ARTICLE 39 DOES NOT CONTAIN HIGHER RULES OF LAW PROTECTING INDIVIDUALS FOR WHOSE BREACH THE COMMUNITY MAY INCUR NON-CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY . THE COUNCIL POINTS OUT THAT , IN ITS JUDGMENTS , THE COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THAT THE INSTITUTIONS ENJOY A BROAD MARGIN OF DISCRETION IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OBJECTIVES SET FORTH IN ARTICLE 39 , AND HAS CONCEDED THAT IT IS IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES PERMISSIBLE TO GIVE ONE OF THOSE OBJECTIVES PRIORITY