AND THE ORDER IN WHICH THOSE MEASURES ARE TAKEN , THE OBLIGATION TO ACT IMPOSED BY ARTICLES 74 AND 75 OF THE TREATY , AS WELL AS BY ARTICLE 3 ( E ), IS SUFFICIENTLY PRECISE TO BE THE SUBJECT , IN THE EVENT OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH IT , OF AN ACTION FOR FAILURE TO ACT UNDER ARTICLE 175 .
32 THE PARLIAMENT AND THE COMMISSION ADD THAT IN ANY EVENT ARTICLE 75 PRESCRIBES A VERY PRECISE TIME-LIMIT FOR THE MEASURES TO BE TAKEN IN AREAS WHICH THE TREATY OBVIOUSLY CONSIDERS TO BE ESSENTIAL , SINCE THE COMMON RULES APPLICABLE TO INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT AND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH NON-RESIDENT CARRIERS MAY OPERATE TRANSPORT SERVICES WITHIN A MEMBER STATE WERE TO BE ADOPTED DURING THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD , THAT IS TO SAY , BEFORE THE END OF 1969 . BOTH INSTITUTIONS POINT OUT THAT THE TWO AREAS IN QUESTION ARE CLOSELY CONNECTED WITH THE FREEDOM TO PROVIDE SERVICES , WHICH THE TREATY REQUIRES , IN PRINCIPLE , TO BE ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE END OF THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD , ALTHOUGH IN THE CASE OF TRANSPORT THAT FREEDOM IS SUBJECT , ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 61 , TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMON POLICY .
33 THE COURT NOTES THAT THE PARLIAMENT HAS MADE TWO SEPARATE CLAIMS : ONE CONCERNING THE FAILURE TO INTRODUCE A COMMON TRANSPORT POLICY AND IN PARTICULAR TO LAY DOWN ITS FRAMEWORK , AND THE OTHER CONCERNING THE COUNCIL ' S FAILURE TO ACT ON 16 PROPOSALS RELATING TO TRANSPORT WHICH THE COMMISSION HAD SUBMITTED TO IT . ONLY THE FIRST CLAIM RAISES THE QUESTION WHETHER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 175 , AND ITS PLACE IN THE SYSTEM OF LEGAL REMEDIES PROVIDED BY THE TREATY , PERMIT THE COURT TO FIND THAT THERE HAS BEEN A BREACH OF THE TREATY IN THE FORM OF A FAILURE TO ACT .
34 ALTHOUGH THE WORDING OF ARTICLE 175 , ESPECIALLY IN THE GERMAN AND DUTCH VERSIONS , SEEMS TO CALL FOR AN INTERPRETATION WHICH PRESUPPOSES THE EXISTENCE OF A FAILURE TO ADOPT THE SPECIFIC MEASURE , THAT ARGUMENT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE . IN THE FIRST PLACE , THE OTHER LANGUAGE VERSIONS ARE SO WORDED AS TO ALLOW THE INCLUSION OF A LESS CLEARLY CIRCUMSCRIBED FAILURE ; IN THE SECOND PLACE THE PURPOSE OF ARTICLE 175 WOULD BE FRUSTRATED IF AN APPLICANT WERE NOT ABLE TO REFER TO THE COURT AN INSTITUTION ' S FAILURE TO ADOPT SEVERAL DECISIONS , OR A SERIES OF DECISIONS , WHERE THE ADOPTION OF SUCH DECISIONS IS AN OBLIGATION WHICH THE TREATY IMPOSES ON THAT INSTITUTION .
35 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE COUNCIL IS , IN ESSENCE , WHETHER IN THE PRESENT CASE THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT , IN DESCRIBING IN ITS FIRST CLAIM THE MEASURES WHICH IT COMPLAINS THE COUNCIL HAS FAILED TO TAKE , HAS DONE SO WITH A DEGREE OF PRECISION WHICH WOULD MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR THE COUNCIL TO COMPLY , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 176 , WITH A