TO ABOVE, THAT WHERE THE COUNCIL HAD FAILED TO ACT, ARTICLE 5 OF THE TREATY REQUIRED MEMBER STATES TO FACILITATE THE COMMUNITY' S ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ITS TASK AND TO REFRAIN FROM ANY MEASURES LIKELY TO JEOPARDIZE THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE AIMS OF THE TREATY; ARTICLE 5 IMPOSED ON MEMBER STATES SPECIAL DUTIES OF ACTION AND ABSTENTION WHERE THE COMMISSION, IN ORDER TO MEET URGENT CONSERVATION NEEDS, HAD SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL PROPOSALS WHICH, ALTHOUGH THEY WERE NOT ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL, REPRESENTED A BASIS FOR CONCERTED COMMUNITY ACTION . THE COURT ALSO DECLARED THAT THIS WAS A FIELD RESERVED TO THE POWERS OF THE COMMUNITY, WITHIN WHICH MEMBER STATES MIGHT HENCEFORTH ACT ONLY AS TRUSTEES OF THE COMMON INTEREST; MEMBER STATES COULD NOT, THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF APPROPRIATE ACTION ON THE PART OF THE COUNCIL, BRING INTO FORCE ANY INTERIM CONSERVATION MEASURES WHICH MIGHT BE REQUIRED BY THE SITUATION EXCEPT AS PART OF A PROCESS OF COLLABORATION WITH THE COMMISSION.MEMBER STATES HAD A DUTY NOT TO LAY DOWN NATIONAL CONSERVATION MEASURES INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE OBJECTIONS, RESERVATIONS OR CONDITIONS WHICH MIGHT BE FORMULATED BY THE COMMISSION .
22 THE COURT THUS ACCEPTED THAT WHERE THE COUNCIL HAD FAILED TO ADOPT THE CONSERVATION MEASURES NECESSARY TO PROTECT FISH STOCKS SUCH MEASURES, DESIGNED TO ANSWER URGENT NEEDS, MIGHT BE AGREED UPON BY MEANS OF A PROCESS OF COOPERATION BETWEEN THE MEMBER STATES AND THE COMMISSION IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE COMMUNITY TO MEET ITS RESPONSIBILITIES .
23 IT IS COMMON GROUND THAT NO SUCH PROCESS OF COOPERATION WAS INITIATED IN 1981 BETWEEN THE NETHERLANDS AND THE COMMISSION, OTHER THAN FOR MACKEREL, SINCE THE NETHERLANDS DID NOT RESPOND TO THE COMMISSION' S INVITATION TO ADOPT THE MEASURES NEEDED TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROPOSALS . IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND WITHOUT ITS BEING NECESSARY TO RULE ON THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THAT LACK OF COOPERATION ON THE PART OF A MEMBER STATE, IT MUST BE FOUND THAT THE PROPOSALS UNILATERALLY MADE BY THE COMMISSION IN RELATION TO THE FISHING QUOTAS TO BE ALLOCATED TO THE NETHERLANDS CANNOT BE REGARDED AS COMMUNITY RULES .
24 MOREOVER, AS THE COURT HAS REPEATEDLY HELD, COMMUNITY LEGISLATION MUST BE CERTAIN AND ITS APPLICATION FORESEEABLE BY THOSE SUBJECT TO IT.THAT REQUIREMENT OF LEGAL CERTAINTY MUST BE OBSERVED ALL THE MORE STRICTLY IN THE CASE OF RULES LIABLE TO ENTAIL FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES, IN ORDER THAT THOSE CONCERNED MAY KNOW PRECISELY THE EXTENT OF THE OBLIGATIONS WHICH THEY IMPOSE ON THEM .
25 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE WERE IN 1981 NO RULES OF COMMUNITY LAW WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLES 2 AND 3 OF REGULATION NO 729/70, DISREGARD OF WHICH COULD JUSTIFY THE COMMISSION' S REFUSAL TO CHARGE TO THE FUND THE EXPORT REFUNDS AND INTERVENTION PAYMENTS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE ACTION .
26 MOREOVER, IT HAS NOT BEEN DENIED THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS ACTUALLY INCURRED BY THE NETHERLANDS . COMMISSION DECISION NO 85/464 OF 28 AUGUST 1985 MUST THEREFORE BE DECLARED