MUST BE BORNE IN MIND FIRST OF ALL THAT ARTICLE 123*(3 ) OF THE ACT OF ACCESSION DOES NOT SIMPLY LAY DOWN A CEILING IN THE FIRST SENTENCE BUT ALSO SPECIFIES, IN THE SECOND SENTENCE, THE CONSEQUENCES WHICH MUST BE DRAWN FROM THAT RULE FOR THE CALCULATION OF THE LEVEL OF THE REGULATORY AMOUNTS . HAVING PROVIDED THAT THE REGULATORY AMOUNT IS TO BE FIXED AT A LEVEL WHICH ENSURES CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH TREATMENT IS NO LESS FAVOURABLE THAN THOSE IN FORCE PRIOR TO ACCESSION, PARAGRAPH ( 3 ) GOES ON TO STATE THAT "TO THIS END" THAT AMOUNT IS TO BE CALCULATED IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE AMOUNT OBTAINED BY INCREASING THE SPANISH GUIDE PRICE BY THE REGULATORY AMOUNT AND BY THE CUSTOMS DUTIES DOES NOT EXCEED THE COMMUNITY REFERENCE PRICE FOR THE PRODUCT IN QUESTION .
9 IT FOLLOWS THAT, IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE CEILING RULE IN ARTICLE 123*(3 ) HAS BEEN COMPLIED WITH, IT IS NECESSARY TO COMPARE THE LEVEL OF THE COMMUNITY REFERENCE PRICE FOR THE PRODUCT IN QUESTION WITH THE SUM OF THE SPANISH GUIDE PRICE FOR THAT PRODUCT, THE REGULATORY AMOUNT AND THE CUSTOMS DUTY .
10 AT THE COURT' S REQUEST, THE COMMISSION SUBMITTED A TABLE OF FIGURES SHOWING, FOR THE MOST COMMON TABLE WINES, THE CALCULATION OF THE REGULATORY AMOUNTS IN RELATION TO THE LEVELS OF THE COMMUNITY REFERENCE PRICES, THE SPANISH GUIDE PRICES AND THE CUSTOMS DUTIES . THOSE FIGURES, WHICH ARE NOT CONTESTED BY THE APPLICANT, SHOW THAT THE LEVEL OF THE REFERENCE PRICE REPRESENTING THE CEILING TO BE OBSERVED WAS NOT REACHED BUT THAT, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE SUM OF THE SPANISH GUIDE PRICE, THE REGULATORY AMOUNT AND THE CUSTOMS DUTY WAS CONSIDERABLY BELOW THAT CEILING .
11 AS THE APPLICANT HAS NOT PUT FORWARD ANY FIRM EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS COMPLAINT, IN SO FAR AS IT CONCERNS THE OTHER PRODUCTS OF THE SECTOR IN QUESTION, THIS COMPLAINT CANNOT BE UPHELD .
12 THE APPLICANT ALSO MAINTAINS THAT THE COMMISSION FIXED REGULATORY AMOUNTS ONLY FOR THE TRADITIONAL CATEGORIES OF TABLE WINES WITHOUT TAKING ACCOUNT OF SUPERIOR QUALITY TABLE WINES AND WITHOUT PROVIDING FOR A SPECIFIC AMOUNT FOR THAT CATEGORY . IN SO DOING, THE COMMISSION INFRINGED NOT ONLY THE ADJUSTMENT RULE LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 123*(2 ) OF THE ACT OF ACCESSION BUT ALSO ARTICLE 2*(3 ) OF COUNCIL REGULATION NO 480/86, ACCORDING TO WHICH THE REGULATORY AMOUNT FOR CERTAIN TABLE WINES IS TO BE SET AT A LEVEL BELOW THE HIGHEST REGULATORY AMOUNT FOR THE TYPE OF TABLE WINE IN QUESTION .
13 IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION FROM THE COURT, THE COMMISSION STATED, IN THE FIRST PLACE, THAT CERTAIN TABLE WINES BOTTLED AND MARKETED IN THE PRODUCTION AREA ARE OF A HIGH QUALITY OWING TO THE PARTICULAR CARE TAKEN OVER THEM AND TO THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS IN WHICH THEY ARE PRODUCED, AND SECONDLY THAT THE COST OF BOTTLING AND OF TRANSPORTING BOTTLED WINES REPRESENTS A LARGE PART OF THE FINAL VALUE OF