IN RESPECT OF A SINGLE PART OF THE COMMON MARKET , IN OTHER WORDS THE REPUBLIC OF ITALY , HAVING REGARD TO THE SPECIAL SITUATION IN THE SUGAR SECTOR IN THAT COUNTRY .
16THESE DEROGATIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE GENERAL OR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULES GOVERNING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE BASIC QUOTAS BUT ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THOSE VERY RULES SO AS TO FORM A LEGISLATIVE WHOLE AIMING ON THE ONE HAND TO PROVIDE LEGAL CERTAINTY FOR THE UNDERTAKINGS CONCERNED AND , ON THE OTHER , EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION CAPABLE OF ADAPTING ITSELF , WITHIN CERTAIN LIMITS , TO CHANGES IN THE STRUCTURE OF THE SUGAR SECTOR .
17IT IS NECESSARY TO CONCLUDE FROM THIS THAT THE NATURE OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF ARTICLE 2 OF REGULATION NO 3331/74 IS PURELY THAT OF A REGULATION AND THAT IT CANNOT THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED TO CONSTITUTE IN CERTAIN RESPECTS A DECISION .
18THE AMENDMENT MADE BY THE CONTESTED REGULATION HAS NOT CHANGED THE NATURE OF THE PROVISION , SINCE PARAGRAPH 3 WHICH HAS BEEN ADDED THERETO CONTAINS MERELY AN ADDITIONAL DEROGATION WHICH DOES NOT CONCERN CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL UNDERTAKINGS BUT A PART OF THE TERRITORY WHICH IS EXPRESSLY REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 24 OF REGULATION NO 3330/74 AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH A SEPARATE BASIC QUANTITY HAS BEEN FIXED .
19IT IS NECESSARY THEREFORE TO CONCLUDE FROM THIS THAT THE AMENDMENT MADE BY THE CONTESTED REGULATION SHARES IS , IN THE SAME WAY AS ARTICLE 2 OF REGULATION NO 3331/74 , IN THE NATURE OF A REGULATION .
20MOREOVER , THE CONTESTED REGULATION IS NOT OF DIRECT OR INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THE APPLICANTS .
21ALTHOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT THEY COULD HAVE BEEN CONCERNED BY THE USE WHICH THE MEMBER STATE MIGHT MAKE OF THE DEROGATING RULE ADOPTED , PARAGRAPH 3 ADDED TO THAT ARTICLE NEVERTHELESS PROVIDES EXPRESSLY THAT ' ' THE FRENCH REPUBLIC MAY . . . ' ' REDUCE THE BASIC QUOTA FOR EACH UNDERTAKING ' ' , THUS LEAVING TO THAT MEMBER STATE THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO REDUCE THE BASIC QUOTAS AND , IF THE ANSWER IS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE , TO DECIDE WHETHER THE BASIC QUOTAS OF ALL OR OF CERTAIN UNDERTAKINGS ARE TO BE REDUCED .
22IT IS THEREFORE CLEAR THAT ONLY THE MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE FRENCH REPUBLIC UNDER THE DEROGATING RULE LAID DOWN BY REGULATION NO 298/78 COULD BE OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THE APPLICANTS .
23IT IS NECESSARY TO CONCLUDE FROM THIS THAT THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE TREATY ARE NOT FULFILLED IN THE PRESENT CASE SO THAT THE APPLICATIONS MUST BE DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE .
Decision on costs
COSTS
24UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS IF THEY HAVE BEEN ASKED FOR .
25IN THE PRESENT CASE THE APPLICANTS AND THE INTERVENER HAVE FAILED IN THEIR SUBMISSIONS .
26IT IS THEREFORE NECESSARY TO ORDER THEM TO PAY