OF ARTICLE 6 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 243/78 , ALSO THE AMOUNT IN FORCE ON THE LAST DAY OF THE PERIOD FOR THE SUBMISSION OF TENDERS , THERE IS NO DISCREPANCY IN THAT REGARD BETWEEN THE SYSTEM FOR DETERMINING EXPORT REFUNDS AND THAT FOR FIXING THE MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS .
2.THE OBJECT OF THE INTERVENTION MACHINERY IN THE SUGAR SECTOR IS TO MAINTAIN MARKET PRICES AT THE DESIRED LEVEL BY THE IMPOSITION ON THE INTERVENTION AGENCIES OF THE OBLIGATION TO ACCEPT SUGAR , SUBJECT TO THE DIFFERENCES IN SYSTEM , DEPENDING ON WHETHER IT IS CLASSIFIED AS ' ' A ' ' , ' ' B ' ' OR ' ' C ' ' SUGAR , IN REGARD TO THE INTERVENTION PRICE , BUT NOT TO GIVE PRODUCERS A GUARANTEE THAT THEY WILL OBTAIN THAT PRICE IN EVERY ONE OF THEIR TRANSACTIONS , STILL LESS TO FORCE PURCHASERS TO AMEND THEIR CONTRACTS IN THE EVENT OF A CHANGE IN THE INTERVENTION PRICE OR IN THE RATE OF EXCHANGE . DETERMINATION BOTH OF THE SELLING PRICE ON EXPORT AND OF THE PURCHASE PRICE FOR THE SUGAR IS A MATTER OF FREE CHOICE AND THEREFORE A RISK TO BE BORNE BY THE UNDERTAKINGS CONCERNED . THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH A RISK CANNOT JUSTIFY ANY ADJUSTMENT OF THE AMOUNTS FIXED ON THE BASIS OF COMMUNITY REGULATIONS IN THE FORM , IN PARTICULAR , OF EXPORT REFUNDS IN ORDER TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF AN INCREASE IN THE INTERVENTION PRICE .
3.THE STATEMENT OF REASONS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 190 OF THE TREATY MUST BE APPROPRIATE TO THE NATURE OF THE MEASURE IN QUESTION . IT MUST SHOW CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY THE REASONING OF THE COMMUNITY AUTHORITY WHICH ISSUED THE CONTESTED MEASURE SO AS TO INFORM THE PERSONS CONCERNED OF THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE MEASURE ADOPTED AND TO ENABLE THE COURT TO EXERCISE ITS POWER OF REVIEW .
4.THE STATEMENT OF REASONS ON WHICH A REGULATION IS BASED IS NOT REQUIRED TO SPECIFY THE OFTEN VERY NUMEROUS AND COMPLEX MATTERS OF FACT OR OF LAW CONSTITUTING THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE REGULATION , PROVIDED THAT THOSE MATTERS FALL WITHIN THE GENERAL SCHEME OF THE WHOLE OF WHICH IT FORMS PART . IF THE CONTESTED MEASURE CLEARLY DISCLOSES THE ESSENTIAL OBJECTIVE PURSUED BY THE INSTITUTION , IT WOULD BE GOING TOO FAR TO INSIST UPON A SPECIFIC STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR EACH OF THE TECHNICAL CHOICES FOR WHICH IT PROVIDES .
5.AS EACH OF THE COMMON ORGANIZATIONS OF THE MARKET EMBODIES FEATURES SPECIFIC TO IT , A COMPARISON OF THE TECHNICAL RULES AND PROCEDURES ADOPTED IN ORDER TO REGULATE THE VARIOUS SECTORS OF THE MARKET CANNOT CONSTITUTE A VALID BASIS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVING THE COMPLAINT OF DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN DISSIMILAR PRODUCTS , WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO DIFFERENT RULES AND WHICH , MOREOVER , IN NO WAY COMPETE WITH EACH OTHER .
6.A DIFFERENCE OF TREATMENT WHICH IS MERELY THE CONSEQUENCE OF A CHOICE BETWEEN TWO SYSTEMS OFFERED TO TRADERS UNDER A COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE