NOTIFICATION FROM ITALY THAT , BECAUSE OF THE INTRODUCTION OF IMPEDIMENTS TO THE IMPORTATION INTO JAPAN OF CERTAIN PRODUCTS , IN PARTICULAR SKI BOOTS , ITALY INTENDED TO INTRODUCE IMPORT AUTHORIZATION ARRANGEMENTS FOR CERTAIN PRODUCTS ORIGINATING IN JAPAN , IN PARTICULAR FOR CERTAIN MOTOR-CYCLES .
3IN THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 1 OF THE CONTESTED REGULATION : ' ' IMPORTS INTO ITALY OF MOTOR-CYCLES HAVING A CYLINDER CAPACITY OF 380 CC OR MORE , FALLING WITHIN HEADING EX 87.09 OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF , ORIGINATING IN JAPAN , ARE HEREBY MADE SUBJECT TO THE PRODUCTION OF AN IMPORT AUTHORIZATION ISSUED BY THE ITALIAN AUTHORITIES .
' ' THE TOTAL QUANTITY OF THE PRODUCTS FOR WHICH IMPORT AUTHORIZATIONS SHALL BE ISSUED FOR THE PERIOD 1 JANUARY TO 31 DECEMBER 1977 SHALL NOT EXCEED 18 000 ITEMS ' ' .
4THE APPLICANTS MAINTAIN THAT THAT REGULATION ADVERSELY AFFECTS RIGHTS ACQUIRED UNDER THE PREVIOUS ITALIAN IMPORT SYSTEM AND IS THUS OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THEM .
5THE COUNCIL , THE DEFENDANT , HAS RAISED AN OBJECTION OF INADMISSIBILITY IN A SEPARATE DOCUMENT , ALLEGING THAT THE CONTESTED REGULATION IS NEITHER OF DIRECT NOR OF INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THE APPLICANTS SO THAT THEIR APPLICATION DOES NOT FULFIL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE TREATY .
6THAT ARTICLE EMPOWERS PRIVATE PERSONS TO CONTEST DECISIONS ADDRESSED TO THEM OR DECISIONS WHICH , ALTHOUGH IN THE FORM OF A REGULATION OR A DECISION ADDRESSED TO ANOTHER PERSON , ARE OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THE FORMER .
7IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE CONTESTED MEASURE MAY BE REGARDED AS A REGULATION AND IT IS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH WHETHER IT IS IN FACT OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THE APPLICANTS .
8REGULATION NO 1692/77 ESTABLISHES FOR A LIMITED PERIOD A SYSTEM COVERING THE IMPORTATION INTO ITALY OF MOTOR-CYCLES SPECIFIED THEREIN AND ORIGINATING IN JAPAN .
9THAT SYSTEM CONSISTS IN INTRODUCING A REQUIREMENT TO PRODUCE AN IMPORT AUTHORIZATION ISSUED BY THE ITALIAN AUTHORITIES , AND FOR THE YEAR 1977 SUCH AUTHORIZATONS WERE NOT TO BE ISSUED FOR MORE THAN 18 000 ITEMS .
10THE SYSTEM WOULD ONLY AFFECT THE INTERESTS OF THE IMPORTERS IN THE EVENT OF THE NECESSARY AUTHORIZATION ' S BEING REFUSED THEM .
11CONSEQUENTLY REGULATION NO 1692/77 WOULD ONLY BE OF CONCERN TO THE APPLICANTS IF , PURSUANT TO THAT MEASURE , THEY WERE REFUSED AN IMPORT AUTHORIZATION .
12IN THAT CASE THEY WILL BE ABLE TO RAISE THE MATTER BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURT HAVING JURISDICTION , IF NECESSARY RAISING BEFORE THAT COURT THEIR QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE VALIDITY OF THE REGULATION , WHICH THE COURT WILL , IF IT THINKS FIT BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH BY MEANS OF THE PROCEDURE UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE TREATY .
13IN THE PRESENT CASE THE CONDITION LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 173 , TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CONTESTED MEASURE MUST BE OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THE APPLICANTS , IS NOT FULFILLED .
14THE APPLICANTS