BETWEEN THE PARTIES , MUST BE RESERVED .
18 IRELAND ' S ARGUMENTS ALLEGING THAT THE ORDER AT ISSUE WAS PUT INTO EFFECT BECAUSE OF IMPORTS OF NEW POTATOES INTO THE UNITED KINGDOM UNDER A TARIFF QUOTA ACCORDED TO CYPRUS MUST ALSO BE PLACED IN THEIR PROPER PERSPECTIVE . EVEN IF SUCH IMPORTS WERE THE CAUSE OF THE MEASURE AT ISSUE , IT IS NONE THE LESS TRUE THAT THE ORDER ITSELF IS OF A PERMANENT AND GENERAL NATURE INASMUCH AS IT DEALS WITH IMPORTS OF POTATOES REGARDLESS OF THEIR ORIGIN OTHER THAN THOSE ORIGINATING IN THE MEMBER STATES , AT ALL TIMES OF THE YEAR , AND THUS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE POTATOES IN QUESTION ARE NEW POTATOES OR BELONG TO ANOTHER CATEGORY .
19 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT THE ORDER AT ISSUE MUST BE CONSIDERED IN TERMS OF ITS PRINCIPLE , HAVING REGARD TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF COMMUNITY LAW , BUT ONLY WITH REGARD TO POTATOES ORIGINATING IN NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES AND PUT INTO FREE CIRCULATION IN THE COMMUNITY . THE QUESTION OF DIRECT IMPORTS MUST THEREFORE BE RESERVED . IT IS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK THUS DEFINED THAT THE IRISH GOVERNMENT ' S SUBMISSIONS MUST BE EXAMINED .
20 UNDER ARTICLE 30 OF THE TREATY ' QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTS ' , THAT IS TO SAY ALL PROHIBITIONS OF IMPORTS AND ALL OTHER RESTRICTIVE MEASURES IN THE FORM OF IMPORT LICENCES OR OTHER SIMILAR PROCEDURES , ARE , WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE EXCEPTIONS LAID DOWN IN THE TREATY ITSELF , TO BE PROHIBITED BETWEEN MEMBER STATES .
21 IRELAND NONE THE LESS ADVANCES A SERIES OF ARGUMENTS , OUTLINED ABOVE , TO JUSTIFY THE REQUIREMENT UNDER THE ORDER AT ISSUE THAT AN IMPORT LICENCE BE OBTAINED FOR POTATOES PRODUCED IN ANY COUNTRY OR TERRITORY OTHER THAN THE MEMBER STATES .
22 IRELAND ' S ARGUMENT BASED ON PRIOR CONSULTATIONS WITH THE COMMISSION AND THE COMMISSION ' S FAILURE TO ACT IN THE INITIAL PERIOD AFTER NOTIFICATION OF THE ORDER CANNOT BE ACCEPTED . EVEN IF IRELAND MAY HAVE OBTAINED THE IMPRESSION THAT ITS MEASURE GAVE RISE TO NO OBJECTION , THE COMMISSION CANNOT , EVEN BY APPROVING EXPRESSLY OR BY IMPLICATION A MEASURE ADOPTED UNILATERALLY BY A MEMBER STATE , CONFER ON THAT STATE THE RIGHT TO MAINTAIN PROVISIONS WHICH ARE OBJECTIVELY CONTRARY TO COMMUNITY LAW .
23 WITH REGARD TO THE ARGUMENT BASED ON THE UNCERTAINTY WHICH IS SAID TO SURROUND THE SCOPE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY RELATING TO FREE MOVEMENT OF PRODUCTS IMPORTED FROM NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES , IT SHOULD BE OBSERVED IN THE FIRST PLACE THAT ACCORDING TO A CONSISTENT LINE OF DECISIONS OF THE COURT , BEGINNING WITH THE JUDGMENT OF 10 DECEMBER 1974 ( CASE 48/74 , CHARMASSON V MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC AFFAIRS AND FINANCE ( 1974 ) ECR 1383 ) AND CONFIRMED BY THE JUDGMENTS OF 16 MARCH 1977 , 29 MARCH 1979 AND 25 SEPTEMBER 1979 , CITED ABOVE , AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS IN RESPECT OF WHICH A COMMON ORGANIZATION