EXAMPLE , UPON CO-OPERATIVES , BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE APPLICANTS ARE INDIVIDUALLY CONCERNED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 , WHICH HYPOTHESIS THE COMMISSION DENIES IN ANY CASE .
7 THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 EMPOWERS INDIVIDUALS TO CONTEST , INTER ALIA , ANY DECISION WHICH , ALTHOUGH IN THE FORM OF A REGULATION , IS OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THEM . THE OBJECTIVE OF THAT PROVISION IS IN PARTICULAR TO PREVENT THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS FROM BEING IN A POSITION , MERELY BY CHOOSING THE FORM OF A REGULATION , TO EXCLUDE AN APPLICATION BY AN INDIVIDUAL AGAINST A DECISION WHICH CONCERNS HIM DIRECTLY AND INDIVIDUALLY ; IT THEREFORE STIPULATES THAT THE CHOICE OF FORM CANNOT CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE MEASURE .
8 BY VIRTUE OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 189 OF THE TREATY THE CRITERION FOR DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN A REGULATION AND A DECISION IS WHETHER THE MEASURE AT ISSUE IS OF GENERAL APPLICATION OR NOT .
AS THE AMENDMENT TO REGULATION NO 1530/78 MADE BY ARTICLE 1 ( 3 ) OF REGULATION NO 1732/79 CONCERNING THE INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION FOR AID IS MERELY THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF THE LIMITATION IMPOSED BY ARTICLE 1 OF REGULATION NO 1731/79 , CONSIDERATION NEED ONLY BE GIVEN TO THE NATURE OF THE LATTER PROVISION .
9 A PROVISION WHICH LIMITS THE GRANTING OF PRODUCTION AID FOR ALL PRODUCERS IN RESPECT OF A PARTICULAR PRODUCT TO A UNIFORM PERCENTAGE OF THE QUANTITY PRODUCED BY THEM DURING A UNIFORM PRECEDING PERIOD IS BY NATURE A MEASURE OF GENERAL APPLICATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 189 OF THE TREATY . IN FACT THE MEASURE APPLIES TO OBJECTIVELY DETERMINED SITUATIONS AND PRODUCES LEGAL EFFECTS WITH REGARD TO CATEGORIES OF PERSONS DESCRIBED IN A GENERALIZED AND ABSTRACT MANNER . THE NATURE OF THE MEASURE AS A REGULATION IS NOT CALLED IN QUESTION BY THE MERE FACT THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE THE NUMBER OR EVEN THE IDENTITY OF THE PRODUCERS TO BE GRANTED THE AID WHICH IS LIMITED THEREBY .
10 NOR IS THE FACT THAT THE CHOICE OF REFERENCE PERIOD IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT FOR THE APPLICANTS , WHOSE PRODUCTION IS SUBJECT TO CONSIDERABLE VARIATION FROM ONE MARKETING YEAR TO ANOTHER AS A RESULT OF THEIR OWN PROGRAMME OF PRODUCTION , SUFFICIENT TO ENTITLE THEM TO AN INDIVIDUAL REMEDY . MOREOVER , THE APPLICANTS HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED THE EXISTENCE OF CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS TO JUSTIFY DESCRIBING THAT CHOICE - THE CONFORMITY OF WHICH WITH THE COUNCIL ' S REGULATIONS , AND ESPECIALLY WITH THE BASIC REGULATION , IS ONLY RELEVANT TO THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES OF THE CASE - AS A DECISION ADOPTED SPECIFICALLY IN RELATION TO THEM AND , AS SUCH , ENTITLING THEM TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 .
11 IT FOLLOWS THAT THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE COMMISSION MUST BE ACCEPTED AS REGARDS THE APPLICATIONS FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE PROVISIONS IN