AT 10% OF THE TOTAL QUOTA OF 1*100 TONNES, OR WAS THAT PERCENTAGE ENACTED AS AN UPPER LIMIT IN ORDER TO OBVIATE THE RISK OF DISTURBANCES IN EXISTING PATTERNS OF TRADE, IN WHICH CASE THE COMPETENT GREEK AUTHORITIES MAY SET THE IMPORT ENTITLEMENT OF THE SOLE NEW IMPORTER AT A LEVEL LOWER THAN 10% IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE EQUALITY OF TREATMENT WITH THE SMALLEST EXISTING IMPORTER, ASSUMING THAT THE ENTIRE QUOTA OF 1*100 TONNES IS USED?
( B ) IN THE LIGHT OF THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION AND OF THE NATURE OF THE PROTECTIVE MEASURES TAKEN UNDER ARTICLE 130 OF THE ACT OF ACCESSION OF GREECE, MAY AN INDIVIDUAL IMPORTER RELY DIRECTLY ON THE AFOREMENTIONED MEASURES IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A NATIONAL COURT FOR THE ANNULMENT OF AN INDIVIDUAL ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURE?"
7 REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE REPORT FOR THE HEARING FOR A FULLER ACCOUNT OF THE FACTS, THE BACKGROUND TO THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS AND THE OBSERVATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSION AND THE GREEK GOVERNMENT .
THE FIRST QUESTION
8 IT MUST BE OBSERVED THAT ARTICLE 7 OF DECISION 84/64/EEC PROVIDES THAT "THE SHARES TO BE RESERVED FOR NEW IMPORTERS SHALL NOT EXCEED 10% OF THE TOTAL LIMITS ". THAT PROVISION CANNOT BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN THAT THAT OVERALL SHARE MUST BE ALLOCATED IN FULL TO NEW IMPORTERS . ITS PURPOSE IS SIMPLY TO AVOID THE RISK THAT, IN A SITUATION WHERE IMPORTS ARE RESTRICTED, THE ACTIVITIES OF NEW IMPORTERS MIGHT INTERFERE WITH EXISTING PATTERNS OF TRADE .
9 WHEN ISSUING IMPORT PERMITS TO NEW IMPORTERS, GREECE WAS BOUND, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 6 OF THE ABOVEMENTIONED DECISION, TO RESPECT EXISTING TRADE PATTERNS . IF THE APPLICANT, AS THE ONLY NEW IMPORTER, HAD BEEN ALLOCATED THE SHARE OF 110 TONNES, IT WOULD HAVE ENJOYED MORE FAVOURABLE TREATMENT THAN EXISTING IMPORTERS, THE SMALLEST OF WHICH WAS GIVEN THE SAME SHARE AS THE APPLICANT .
10 THE GREEK AUTHORITIES' INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS IN QUESTION ACCORDING TO WHICH THE QUANTITY WHICH NEW IMPORTERS WERE ENTITLED TO IMPORT COULD NOT BE HIGHER THAN THAT ALLOCATED TO THE SMALLEST EXISTING IMPORTER DOES, THEREFORE, CORRESPOND TO THE OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMUNITY LEGISLATION ON CONDITION THAT THAT SMALLEST QUOTA IS NOT FOR AN INSIGNIFICANT AMOUNT .
11 THUS THE REPLY TO THE FIRST QUESTION MUST BE THAT ARTICLES 6 AND 7 OF DECISION 84/64 SHOULD BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT THE GREEK AUTHORITIES MAY, PROVIDED THAT THE WHOLE OF THE OVERALL QUOTA OF 1*100 TONNES IS ALLOCATED, SET THE SHARE OF A NEW IMPORTER AT A FIGURE LESS THAN 10% OF THE OVERALL QUOTA, THAT SHARE BEING IDENTICAL TO THE SMALLEST SHARES ALLOCATED TO EXISTING IMPORTERS, IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO ENSURE THAT EXISTING PATTERNS OF TRADE ARE OBSERVED .
12 IN VIEW OF THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO REPLY TO THE SECOND QUESTION .
Decision on costs
COSTS
13 THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE GREEK GOVERNMENT AND BY THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, WHICH HAVE SUBMITTED