JUDICIAL REVIEW, IS SUFFICIENTLY MET AS LONG AS THE COMMISSION, AS HERE, PUTS AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE PARTIES THE TECHNICAL DATA USED BY IT IN FIXING THE FREE-AT-FRONTIER PRICES WHENEVER THE DECISION IS CHALLENGED BEFORE A COURT HAVING THE APPROPRIATE JURISDICTION .
FOR THESE REASONS IT MUST BE CONCLUDED THAT THE COMMISSION WAS ENTITLED TO CONFINE ITSELF TO SETTING OUT IN A GENERAL FORM THE ESSENTIAL FACTORS TO AND THE PROCEDURE WHICH FORMED THE BACKGROUND TO ITS EVALUATION OF THE FACTS WITHOUT ITS BEING NECESSARY TO SPECIFY THE FACTS THEMSELVES .
IT MUST THEREFORE BE CONCLUDED THAT THE POINTS RAISED BY THE FINANZGERICHT IN QUESTIONS 1 AND 2 ARE NOT CAPABLE OF AFFECTING THE VALIDITY OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION .
QUESTION 3
THE FINANZGERICHT'S THIRD QUESTION IS WHETHER THE COMMISSION INFRINGED ARTICLES 2 AND 3 OF REGULATION NO 19 BY BASING ITS DECISION UPON MARKET QUOTATIONS FOR BARLEY HARVESTED OUTSIDE THE MEMBER STATES, AND IN PARTICULAR OUTSIDE THE NETHERLANDS . THIS QUESTION MUST BE CONSIDERED BECAUSE THE COMMISSION HAS ADMITTED IN ITS WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS THAT THE DECISION WAS BASED ON SUCH QUOTATIONS .
THE GERMAN VERSION OF THESE ARTICLES, WHICH SAYS THAT THE FREE-AT-FRONTIER PRICE IS THE PRICE FOR PRODUCTS ' COMING FROM ' (' STAMMEND AUS ') THE EXPORTING MEMBER STATE, DOES NOT SEEM TO BE AMBIGUOUS . THE THREE OTHER VERSIONS OF THE ARTICLES, HOWEVER, IN WHICH THE EXPRESSION ' STAMMEND AUS ' CORRESPONDS TO ' EN PROVENANCE DE ', ' PROVENIENTE DE ' AND ' AFKOMSTIG UIT ', SHOW THAT IT WAS NOT THE INTENTION IN REGULATION NO 19 TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN PRODUCTS HARVESTED IN THE EXPORTING MEMBER STATE AND THOSE IN FREE CIRCULATION WITHIN IT . THIS INTERPRETATION IS ALSO COMPATIBLE WITH THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 9(2 ) OF THE TREATY EXTENDING THE CUSTOMS UNION TO ' PRODUCTS COMING FROM THIRD COUNTRIES WHICH ARE IN FREE CIRCULATION IN MEMBER STATES '.
THE NEXT ARGUMENT OF THE APPLICANT IN THE MAIN ACTION IS THAT REGULATION NO 86 OF THE COMMISSION OF 25 JULY 1962, WHICH CONTAINS PROVISIONS INTENDED TO AVOID DEFLECTION OF TRADE, FIXES DIFFERENT LEVY RATES FOR CEREALS ON WHETHER THEY ARE HARVESTED IN AN EXPORTING MEMBER STATE OR COME FROM IT WITHOUT HAVING BEEN HARVESTED THERE .
THE PROVISION DOES NOT, HOWEVER, REDUCE THE FORCE OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, ESPECIALLY AS REGULATION NO 89 OF THE COMMISSION, ISSUED ON THE SAME DATE AND LAYING DOWN CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE FREE-AT-FRONTIER PRICES FOR CEREALS, REPEATS THE WORDING OF REGULATION NO 19, THUS CONFIRMING THAT THE RULES IN REGULATION NO 86 HAVE NO INFLUENCE ON THE MACHINERY FOR FIXING FREE-AT-FRONTIER PRICES . THUS QUESTION 3 GIVES NO GROUND FOR INVALIDATING THE DISPUTED DECISION .
QUESTIONS 4 TO 6 ONLY APPLY IF THE COURT HOLDS THE STATEMENT OF REASONS TO BE INADEQUATE, OR THE DECISION TO BE UNLAWFUL BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON QUOTATIONS FOR CEREALS COMING FROM THIRD COUNTRIES . IT IS NOT, THEREFORE, NECESSARY TO GIVE AN ANSWER TO THEM .
Decision on