WAS THEREFORE DETRIMENTALLY AFFECTED . AS FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF A SELECTIVE REFUND OF THE EATE LEVY, IT WAS ALSO DISCRIMINATORY IN RELATION TO FOREIGN BOATMEN SINCE THEY WERE BARRED FROM BECOMING MEMBERS OF EATE AND CONSEQUENTLY OF OBTAINING A REFUND OF THE LEVY .
17 SECONDLY, THE COMMISSION CONSIDERED THAT THE CONDITIONS FOR EXEMPTION WERE NOT MET . IT EMPHASIZED THAT THE PROVISIONS IN QUESTION WERE OUT OF PROPORTION TO THE BENEFITS THE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT SOUGHT TO ACHIEVE AND WERE IN REALITY INTENDED TO MAKE BOATMEN CARRYING EXPORT TRAFFIC BEAR THE COST OF THE EATE REGULATION FUND .
18 ANTIB CONTESTS THAT DECISION IN THIS ACTION, IN SUPPORT OF WHICH IT MAKES THREE SUBMISSIONS . IT ARGUES FIRST OF ALL THAT THE COMMISSION WAS WRONG TO HOLD THAT THE INTRODUCTION OF THE EATE LEVY WAS DISCRIMINATORY IN RELATION TO BOATMEN WHO WERE NATIONALS OF OTHER MEMBER STATES AND THAT IT RESTRICTED COMPETITION . IT FURTHER MAINTAINS THAT THE COMMISSION WAS WRONG TO CONSIDER THAT ONLY FRENCH BOATMEN COULD OBTAIN A REFUND OF THE EATE LEVY . FINALLY, IT ARGUES THAT NO SUFFICIENT GROUNDS WERE GIVEN FOR THE REFUSAL TO GRANT EXEMPTION .
THE INTRODUCTION OF THE EATE LEVY
19 IN THE APPLICANT' S VIEW, THE COLLECTION OF THE EATE LEVY IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY SINCE ALL BOATMEN CARRYING EXPORT TRAFFIC, WHETHER THEY ARE FRENCH OR NATIONALS OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE, ARE REQUIRED TO PAY IT . THE APPLICANT DOES ADMIT THAT ALTHOUGH BOATMEN WHO ARE NATIONALS OF OTHER MEMBER STATES CONTRIBUTED TO THE FINANCING OF EATE' S ACTIVITIES, THEY DERIVED ONLY SLIGHT BENEFIT FROM THOSE ACTIVITIES . IT ARGUES, HOWEVER, THAT THAT WAS DUE NOT TO THE AGREEMENT ITSELF BUT TO THE FACT THAT FRENCH LEGISLATION STRICTLY LIMITS THE ACCESS OF BOATMEN FROM OTHER MEMBER STATES TO INLAND TRAFFIC . FURTHERMORE, THE APPLICANT EMPHASIZES THAT THOSE BOATMEN AND FRENCH BOATMEN ARE NOT IN COMPETITION ON THE INLAND MARKET, AND IT THEREFORE ARGUES THAT THE INTRODUCTION OF THE EATE LEVY COULD NOT HAVE DISTORTED THEIR RELATIVE COMPETITIVE POSITIONS . THE APPLICANT ARGUES THAT IN ANY EVENT THE COMMISSION DID NOT PROVIDE A SUFFICIENT EXPLANATION OF THE ANTI-COMPETITIVE NATURE OF THE LEVY .
20 IT MUST BE EMPHASIZED THAT EATE' S ACTIVITIES WERE INTENDED TO PROMOTE GENERALLY INLAND WATERWAY TRAFFIC ALLOTTED ACCORDING TO THE QUEUING SYSTEM AND THAT, AS THE APPLICANT ACKNOWLEDGES, IT WAS LARGELY INLAND TRAFFIC WHICH BENEFITED FROM THE SUMS COLLECTED UNDER THE EATE LEVY . BOATMEN WHO WERE NATIONALS OF OTHER MEMBER STATES AND COULD NOT CARRY INLAND TRAFFIC THUS DERIVED ONLY A VERY LIMITED BENEFIT FROM EATE' S ACTIVITIES AND THEREFORE SUFFERED DISCRIMINATION .
21 THE CAUSE OF THAT DISCRIMINATION LIES NOT IN THE FRENCH LEGISLATION BUT IN THE FACT THAT THE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT CHOSE TO COLLECT SUMS INTENDED TO PROMOTE ALL TRAFFIC, INCLUDING INLAND TRAFFIC, BY A LEVY ON EXPORT TRAFFIC ALONE, ALTHOUGH THEY KNEW THAT BOATMEN WHO WERE NATIONALS OF OTHER MEMBER STATES HAD ONLY VERY LIMITED ACCESS TO INLAND TRAFFIC AND