IN THE TREATY . SINCE THE COMMISSION WAS SPECIFICALLY GIVEN THE TASK OF PROMOTING SUCH COLLABORATION AND ARRANGING IT, IT IS ENTITLED TO INITIATE CONSULTATION PROCEDURES WITHIN THE SOCIAL FIELD REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 118 .
30 IT MUST BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THAT POWER OF THE COMMISSION MUST BE CONFINED TO ARRANGING A PROCEDURE FOR THE NOTIFICATION OF INFORMATION AND CONSULTATION AND THAT IN THE PRESENT STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY LAW THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION FALLS WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF THE MEMBER STATES . IT MUST ALSO BE POINTED OUT THAT THE POWER WHICH THE COMMISSION SEEKS TO EXERCISE UNDER ARTICLE 118 IS SIMPLY A PROCEDURAL ONE TO SET UP THE NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION MACHINERY WHICH IS TO RESULT IN THE ADOPTION OF A COMMON POSITION ON THE PART OF THE MEMBER STATES .
31 CONSEQUENTLY, SINCE ARTICLE 118 PROVIDES A SPECIFIC BASIS FOR THE COMMISSION' S DECISION THERE IS NO NEED TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE OUTCOME SOUGHT BY THE DECISION IN QUESTION MIGHT HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED THROUGH OTHER GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY OR OTHER PROCEDURES NECESSITATING ACTION ON THE PART OF OTHER INSTITUTIONS .
32 NOW THAT IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THE COMMISSION IS EMPOWERED UNDER ARTICLE 118 TO ADOPT A BINDING DECISION VIS-A-VIS THE MEMBER STATES ESTABLISHING A COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION PROCEDURE, IT MUST BE CONSIDERED WHETHER THE CONTESTED DECISION DOES NOT GO BEYOND THE LIMITS OF SUCH A PROCEDURE, AS THE APPLICANT MEMBER STATES CLAIM .
33 THE MEMBER STATES MAINTAIN THAT THE DECISION DOES NOT MERELY ARRANGE A CONSULTATION PROCEDURE, BUT, BY ASSIGNING AN AIM TO THAT CONSULTATION, SEEKS TO DETERMINE ITS OUTCOME AND HENCE EXCEEDS THE COMMISSION' S POWERS, WHICH ARE OF A PROCEDURAL NATURE . THE SECOND INDENT OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONTESTED DECISION PROVIDES, IN FACT, THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSULTATION PROCEDURE IS TO ENSURE THAT THE AGREEMENTS AND MEASURES COMMUNICATED ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH COMMUNITY POLICIES IN THE FIELDS COVERED BY THE DECISION, INCLUDING POLICY ON DEVELOPMENT AID .
34 SINCE THE COMMISSION HAS A POWER OF A PURELY PROCEDURAL NATURE TO INITIATE A CONSULTATION PROCEDURE IT CANNOT DETERMINE THE RESULT TO BE ACHIEVED IN THAT CONSULTATION AND CANNOT PREVENT THE MEMBER STATES FROM IMPLEMENTING DRAFTS, AGREEMENTS AND MEASURES WHICH IT MIGHT CONSIDER NOT TO BE IN CONFORMITY WITH COMMUNITY POLICIES AND ACTIONS .
35 AS A RESULT, IN SO FAR AS THE SECOND INDENT OF ARTICLE 3 LAYS DOWN A PRECISE OBLIGATION ON THE MEMBER STATES AND IS INTENDED TO DEBAR THEM FROM ADOPTING NATIONAL MEASURES OR CONCLUDING AGREEMENTS THAT THE COMMISSION CONSIDERS NOT TO BE IN CONFORMITY WITH COMMUNITY POLICIES AND ACTIONS, IT MUST BE REGARDED, AS THE APPLICANT MEMBER STATES RIGHTLY ARGUE, AS EXCEEDING THE SCOPE OF THE COMMISSION' S POWERS UNDER ARTICLE 118 .
36 AS A RESULT OF THE FOREGOING THE APPLICANT MEMBER STATES ARE ENTITLED TO SUCCEED IN THEIR REQUEST THAT THE CONTESTED DECISION BE DECLARED VOID IN SO FAR AS THE COMMISSION LACKED COMPETENCE
(