NON-MEMBER COUNTRY WHICH HAS NOT CONCLUDED AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COMMUNITY ON THE EXPORT PRICES OF ITS PRODUCTS , THE GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC , AND WOULD LEAD TO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST OTHER NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES WHICH HAVE CONCLUDED SUCH AGREEMENTS . FOR THOSE REASONS , THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT THE PURPOSE OF ARTICLE 1 OF RECOMMENDATION NO 3140/78 WAS TO BRING TOGETHER ALL THE ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES IN FORCE AND TO UNIFY THE SYSTEM FOR CALCULATING SUCH DUTIES BY REFERENCE TO THE MOST RECENT BASIC PRICE , AS IT HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED AT THE TIME , NAMELY ON 30 DECEMBER 1978 , BUT NOT TO STATE THAT SUCCESSIVE SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS OF BASIC PRICES WERE NOT TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT .
12 IT MUST BE POINTED OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE THAT ALTHOUGH ARTICLE 41 OF THE EEC TREATY , WHICH IS BASED ON A CLEAR SEPARATION OF FUNCTIONS BETWEEN THE NATIONAL COURTS AND THE COURT OF JUSTICE , DOES NOT PERMIT THE COURT EITHER TO ASSESS THE FACTS OF THE CASE OR TO REVIEW THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE QUESTION SUBMITTED FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IS BASED , IT IS NONE THE LESS FOR THE COURT TO SET THE MEASURE WHOSE VALIDITY IS CONTESTED IN CONTEXT IN COMMUNITY LAW AND TO EXAMINE THE CRITERIA FOR INTERPRETATION ESTABLISHED BY COMMUNITY LAW IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO GIVE THE NATIONAL COURT AN APPROPRIATE ANSWER FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESOLVING THE MAIN DISPUTE .
13 IT MUST BE STATED THAT , AS CELESTRI AND THE COMMISSION HAVE RIGHTLY OBSERVED , ARTICLE 1 ( 2 ) OF RECOMMENDATION NO 1006/78/ECSC HAS BEEN REPLACED BY ARTICLE 1 OF RECOMMENDATION NO 3140/78/ECSC WHICH PROVIDED THAT THE BASIC PRICE TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE CALCULATION OF ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES WAS THENCEFORTH TO BE THE PRICE PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSION ON 30 DECEMBER 1978 . THAT INTERPRETATION IS CONFIRMED BY THE FACT THAT A SUBSEQUENT RECOMMENDATION , NO 874/83/ECSC OF 12 APRIL 1983 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1983 , L 96 , P . 10 ), RESTORED THE VALIDITY OF THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF ARTICLE 1 ( 2 ) OF RECOMMENDATION NO 1006/78/ECSC WHEN THE COMMUNITY LEGISLATURE CONSIDERED IT EXPEDIENT TO DO SO .
14 THERE IS NO AUTHORITY EITHER IN THE WORDING OF ARTICLE 1 OF RECOMMENDATION NO 3140/78/ECSC OR ELSEWHERE FOR THE INTERPRETATION PROPOSED BY THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT THAT ARTICLE SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD AS NOT RULING OUT THE POSSIBILITY OF TAKING INTO ACCOUNT SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS OF BASIC PRICES . THAT INTERPRETATION CANNOT , THEREFORE , BE UPHELD .
15 IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS , THE TRIBUNALE ' S QUESTION MUST BE UNDERSTOOD AS CALLING IN QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF 29 DECEMBER 1981 ONLY ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT WAS APPLICABLE AT THE TIME OF THE EVENTS IN QUESTION .
16 THE ANSWER TO THE TRIBUNALE ' S QUESTION MUST THEREFORE BE THAT IT IS UNNECESSARY FOR THE COURT TO GIVE A RULING ON THE VALIDITY OF