PARLIAMENT ALL THE INFORMATION NECESSARY TO SHOW HOW THE COUNCIL ENVISAGED THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMON TRANSPORT POLICY .
22 ON THE SECOND ISSUE THE COUNCIL POINTS OUT THAT WHAT CONSTITUTES A ' DEFINITION OF POSITION ' FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTICLE 175 DEPENDS UPON THE NATURE OF THE OMISSION WITH WHICH THE INSTITUTION IN QUESTION IS CHARGED . WHERE THE INSTITUTION IS REQUIRED TO TAKE A DECISION WITHOUT HAVING THE LEAST DISCRETION IT IS DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE THAT A DEFINITION OF POSITION WHICH DIFFERED FROM THE MEASURE REQUIRED COULD MAKE AN ACTION INADMISSIBLE . IF , ON THE OTHER HAND , THE TREATY GIVES THE INSTITUTION A WIDE DISCRETION , AS IN THE PRESENT CASE , THE SITUATION IS DIFFERENT : A REPLY FROM THE INSTITUTION IN QUESTION SETTING OUT THE STATE OF PROGRESS AND SHOWING WHY THE INSTITUTION HAS NOT YET ACTED AND THE WAY IN WHICH IT INTENDS TO PROCEED SUFFICES IN SUCH A SITUATION TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE IS NO FAILURE FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTICLE 175 AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY THE ACTION IS INADMISSIBLE .
23 THE PARLIAMENT AND THE COMMISSION TAKE THE VIEW THAT THE LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE PARLIAMENT OF 21 SEPTEMBER 1982 SET OUT WITH SUFFICIENT CLARITY THE MEASURES CALLED FOR BY THE PARLIAMENT PURSUANT TO THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 175 AND THAT THE REPLY FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF 22 NOVEMBER 1982 DID NOT DEFINE THE COUNCIL ' S POSITION ON ANY OF THOSE MEASURES , SO THAT THE PARLIAMENT ' S CHARGE THAT THE COUNCIL HAD FAILED TO ACT WAS LEFT UNANSWERED .
24 THE COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 175 WERE SATISFIED IN THE PRESENT CASE . AFTER EXPRESSLY REFERRING TO THAT PROVISION THE PARLIAMENT CLEARLY STATED IN THE LETTER FROM ITS PRESIDENT THAT IT WAS CALLING UPON THE COUNCIL TO ACT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 175 AND APPENDED A LIST OF ACTIONS WHICH IN ITS OPINION OUGHT TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE COUNCIL TO REMEDY ITS FAILURE .
25 THE COUNCIL ' S REPLY , ON THE OTHER HAND , WAS CONFINED TO SETTING OUT WHAT ACTION IT HAD ALREADY TAKEN IN RELATION TO TRANSPORT WITHOUT COMMENTING ' ON THE LEGAL ASPECTS ' OF THE CORRESPONDENCE INITIATED BY THE PARLIAMENT . THE REPLY NEITHER DENIED NOR CONFIRMED THE ALLEGED FAILURE TO ACT NOR GAVE ANY INDICATION OF THE COUNCIL ' S VIEWS AS TO THE MEASURES WHICH , ACCORDING TO THE PARLIAMENT , REMAINED TO BE TAKEN . SUCH A REPLY CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A DEFINITION OF POSITION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 175 .
26 MOREOVER , THE COURT CONSIDERS THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE COUNCIL ' S OBSERVATIONS IN RELATION TO ITS DISCRETION IN IMPLEMENTING THE COMMON TRANSPORT POLICY ARE NOT GERMANE TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS IN ARTICLE 175 WERE COMPLIED WITH . THEY RELATE TO THE MORE GENERAL ISSUE OF WHETHER