THE COMPLETE ROUTE . THE MEASURES ENVISAGED BY THOSE PROVISIONS CAN THEREFORE AFFECT ONLY THOSE AGENCIES WHICH , BY THE USE OF IMPROPER MEANS , ATTEMPT TO AVOID PAYMENT OF THE FULL CHARGES DUE IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN MESSAGES .
42 WHENEVER A MEMBER STATE , OR A RECOGNIZED PRIVATE OPERATING AGENCY TO WHICH A MEMBER STATE HAS ENTRUSTED THE OPERATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES , PERMITS TRANSMISSIONS WHICH ARE NOT IMPROPER IN THE SENSE DESCRIBED ABOVE AND ARE THEREFORE NOT PROHIBITED BY THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS , THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION OF A BREACH BY THE STATE CONCERNED OF COMMITMENTS UNDERTAKEN AT INTERNATIONAL LEVEL .
43 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT THE SCHEMES ADOPTED BY BT HAD A DIFFERENT PURPOSE FROM THE ONE PURSUED BY THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS OF THE TELEGRAPH REGULATIONS AND BY THE CCITT RECOMMENDATION AND WERE CONCERNED WITH PRIVATE MESSAGE-FORWARDING AGENCIES WHOSE ACTIVITIES WERE IN NO WAY IMPROPER .
44 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES , THE SUBMISSION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ICT AND THE LAW DERIVED FROM IT PLACED BT UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO ADOPT THE SCHEMES AT ISSUE MUST IN ANY EVENT BE REJECTED .
III - THE SUBMISSION THAT THE STATEMENT OF REASONS GIVEN FOR THE DECISION AT ISSUE IS INADEQUATE
45 THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC ARGUES THAT THE OBLIGATION UNDER ARTICLE 190 OF THE TREATY TO STATE THE REASONS ON WHICH DECISIONS ARE BASED WAS INFRINGED , AS THE COMMISSION FAILED TO GIVE THE REASONS FOR WHICH IT HAD TAKEN THE VIEW THAT :
( A ) BT ' S STATUTORY MONOPOLY WAS CONTRARY TO COMMUNITY LAW ;
( B)THE EXERCISE OF RULE-MAKING POWERS COULD BE EQUATED WITH A BUSINESS ACTIVITY ;
( C)COMMUNITY RULES ON COMPETITION TOOK PRECEDENCE OVER PRE-EXISTING INTERNATIONAL RULES .
46 FIRST , IT SHOULD BE BORNE IN MIND THAT , ACCORDING TO A CONSISTENT LINE OF DECISIONS OF THE COURT , THE STATEMENT OF THE REASONS ON WHICH A DECISION HAVING ADVERSE EFFECT IS BASED MUST ENABLE THE COURT TO REVIEW THE LEGALITY OF THE DECISION AND TO PROVIDE THE PARTY CONCERNED WITH DETAILS SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THAT PARTY TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT THE DECISION IS WELL-FOUNDED . THE REQUIREMENT OF A STATEMENT OF REASONS MUST BE VIEWED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , AND IN PARTICULAR THE CONTENT OF THE MEASURE IN QUESTION , THE NATURE OF THE REASONS RELIED ON AND THE INTEREST WHICH ADDRESSEES , OR OTHER PERSONS TO WHOM THE MEASURE IS OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN , WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE TREATY , MAY HAVE IN OBTAINING EXPLANATIONS .
47 SECONDLY , IT SHOULD BE OBSERVED THAT THE CONTESTED DECISION IN NO WAY DISPUTES THE COMPATIBILITY OF BT ' S STATUTORY MONOPOLY WITH COMMUNITY LAW . NO REASONS HAD THEREFORE TO BE GIVEN BY THE COMMISSION ON THAT POINT .
48 LASTLY , WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER TWO POINTS DISPUTED BY THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC , THE RECITALS IN THE PREAMBLE