LODGED AT THE REGISTRY ON 21 NOVEMBER 1969 THE DEFENDANT HAS RAISED AN OBJECTION OF INADMISSIBILITY UNDER ARTICLE 91 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, CLAIMING THAT THE MEASURE IN QUESTION WAS A REGULATION AND WAS NOT OF INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THE APPLICANT .
3 IT IS THEREFORE FOR THE COURT TO EXAMINE IN THE LIGHT OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE TREATY WHETHER THE PROVISIONS WHICH FORM THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE APPLICATION ARE MERELY IN THE FORM OF A REGULATION AND DO, IN REALITY, CONSTITUTE A DECISION OF INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THE APPLICANT .
4 THE REGULATION IN QUESTION WAS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 8 OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1586/69 OF THE COUNCIL OF 11 AUGUST 1969 RELATING TO CERTAIN MEASURES OF CONJUNCTURAL POLICY TO BE TAKEN IN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR AS A RESULT OF THE DEVALUATION OF THE FRENCH FRANC ( OJ, L 202 P . 1 ) AND FORMS PART OF A BODY OF PROVISIONS DESIGNED TO ADJUST THE FUNCTIONING OF THE INTERVENTION MECHANISMS OF THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETS TO THE DEVALUATION OF THE FRENCH FRANC ON 8 AUGUST 1969 .
5 THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THESE MEASURES IS THAT CERTAIN CORRECTING FACTORS, CORRESPONDING TO THE DEVALUATION OF THE FRENCH FRANC AS AGAINST THE UNIT OF ACCOUNT, SHOULD BE APPLIED TO CERTAIN AMOUNTS PAYABLE OR TO BE CHARGED BY FRANCE AS A RESULT OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY, AND THEY LAY DOWN THE AMOUNTS OF THESE IN FRENCH FRANCS FOR VARIOUS PRODUCTS .
6 THE APPLICANT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THESE ARE GENERAL MEASURES AND THEREFORE IN THE NATURE OF A REGULATION, AND ADMITS THAT THE FIXING OF THE COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS FOR EXPORT AND OF THE IMPORT SUBSIDIES ON WHEAT, FLOUR AND MESLIN ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE ADJUSTMENT PROCESS AND THEREFORE HAVE, IN PRINCIPLE, GENERAL APPLICATION .
7 HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT THE FIXING OF THE CONTESTED RATE OF 81.87 FF PER METRIC TON OF FLOUR EXPORTED AFFECTS THE UNDERTAKINGS CONCERNED UNEQUALLY, SINCE IT HAS BEEN CALCULATED WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE DIFFERING EFFECTS OF THE INCREASE OF CERTAIN CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF THE COST PRICE, IN PARTICULAR TRANSPORT AND SACKING COSTS, WHICH ARE PAYABLE IN NON-FRENCH CURRENCY .
8 IT SAYS THAT SINCE THESE COSTS VARY ACCORDING TO THE GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF THE FACTORY AND THE SIZE OF THE SACKING PLANT, THE FIXING OF THE CONTESTED AMOUNT DOES NOT HAVE GENERAL AND UNIFORM EFFECT BUT AFFECTS THE VARIOUS FRENCH EXPORTERS IN DIFFERENT WAYS, AND, THEREFORE, INDIVIDUALLY .
9 THE FACT THAT A GENERAL PROVISION DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME EFFECT ON ALL THOSE SUBJECT TO IT IS NOT IN ITSELF CAPABLE OF DEPRIVING IT OF ITS CHARACTER OF A REGULATION .
10 IT IS, ON THE CONTRARY, IN THE NATURE OF A GENERAL PROVISION THAT WHEN UNIFORMLY APPLIED IT MAY AFFECT PERSONS CONCERNED IN DIFFERENT WAYS ACCORDING TO THEIR PARTICULAR SITUATION OR ACTIVITIES .
11 FURTHERMORE, THE APPLICANT' S VIEW THAT IT IS INDIVIDUALLY CONCERNED BY THE PROVISION IN QUESTION APPEARS TO REST ON