WHICH THE ALLEGED FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE OF LAW AND THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF PERFORMANCE OCCURRED, THE TREATY BROUGHT ABOUT THE ABROGATION IPSO JURE OF THE LEGISLATION OF THE MEMBER STATES REFERRED TO IN ONE OR OTHER OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPTER RELATING TO THE ELIMINATION OF THE QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS BETWEEN MEMBER STATES, MENTIONED IN THE ORDER MAKING THE REFERENCE . THE SAID CHAPTER CONTAINS TWO GROUPS OF PROVISIONS RELEVANT TO THIS CASE .
ONE GROUP, APPEARING NOT ONLY IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF BOTH ARTICLE 31 AND ARTICLE 32 BUT ALSO IN ARTICLE 37(2 ) OF THE TREATY, AND PROHIBITING ANY INTENSIFICATION OF THE RESTRICTIONS, DISCRIMINATIONS OR MEASURES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT EXISTING AT THE TIME WHEN THE TREATY ENTERED INTO FORCE, CAN, BY THEIR VERY NATURE, BE APPLIED ONLY TO NATIONAL MEASURES SUBSEQUENT TO THAT DATE .
OTHER PROVISIONS APPEAR EITHER IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 32 AND IN ARTICLE 33, WHICH PROVIDE FOR THE PROGRESSIVE ABOLITION ACCORDING TO A CERTAIN TIMETABLE DURING THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD OF THE QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS REFERRED TO BY THE SAID ARTICLES, OR IN ARTICLE 37(1 ) AND ( 3 ), WHICH PRESCRIBE THE PROGRESSIVE ADJUSTMENT OF STATE MONOPOLIES ACCORDING TO A TIMETABLE HARMONIZED WITH THAT FOR THE SAME PRODUCTS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 30 TO 34 .
ON THE ONE HAND, THE IDEA OF PROGRESSIVE ADJUSTMENT DOES NOT INVOLVE IMMEDIATE ABROGATION IPSO JURE OF THE NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE MEASURES REFERRED TO IN THE SAID ARTICLES . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE TIMETABLE FOR THE ADJUSTMENT PROVIDED FOR DOES NOT PERMIT OF A FORECAST IN THE ABSTRACT OF THE DATES DURING THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD BY WHICH THE OBSTACLES IN QUESTION MUST HAVE DISAPPEARED, BUT DOES REVEAL THAT THE MEMBER STATES WERE NOT OBLIGED TO ABOLISH THEM COMPLETELY BY 1959 . THE TREATY THUS DOES NOT IMPLY THE IMMEDIATE ABROGATION OF ALL THE MEASURES FOR CONTROLLING IMPORTS EXISTING WHEN IT ENTERED INTO FORCE, BUT DOES ON THE OTHER HAND INVOLVE THE PROHIBITION OF ANY NEW RESTRICTION OR DISCRIMINATION, THE OBLIGATION PROGRESSIVELY TO ABOLISH EXISTING RESTRICTIONS AND DISCRIMINATIONS AND THE NECESSITY THAT THEY SHOULD DISAPPEAR TOTALLY AT THE LATEST BY THE END OF THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD .
IT IS, MOREOVER, ALWAYS POSSIBLE FOR INTERESTED PARTIES WHO CONSIDER THEMSELVES HARMED BY UNLAWFUL MEASURES OF A MEMBER STATE TO BRING AN ACTION BEFORE THE COURTS OR TRIBUNALS OF THAT STATE WHICH HAVE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW AND ANNUL THE SAID MEASURES, SO AS TO OBTAIN THE APPROPRIATE SAFEGUARDS FOR THEIR RIGHTS AND INTERESTS, SUBJECT TO THE POWER OR OBLIGATION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, OF THESE COURTS OR TRIBUNALS TO HAVE RECOURSE TO THE PROCEDURE OF ARTICLE 177 IN ORDER TO OBTAIN AN INTERPRETATION, UNIFORM FOR THE WHOLE OF THE COMMUNITY, OF THE COMPLEX PROVISIONS OF THE SAID CHAPTER 2 AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP INTER SE .
THE ABOVE CONSIDERATIONS APPLY WITHOUT DISTINCTION TO THE QUESTIONS PUT BY THE ROME COURT, WITHOUT ITS BEING NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THEM SEPARATELY . THERE IS NO NEED EITHER TO DECIDE IN THIS CASE THE QUESTION WHETHER