) WHEREBY THE COMMISSION INFORMED THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN ACTION THAT , IN APPLICATION OF REGULATION NO 67/67 AND PURSUANT TO ITS DECISION OF 17 JULY 1968 TO TAKE NO ACTION REGARDING THE NOTIFICATION OF EXCLUSIVE DEALING AGREEMENTS WHICH , DID NOT , TO ITS KNOWLEDGE , PROVIDE FOR ABSOLUTE TERRITORIAL PROTECTION , IT HAD DECIDED TO TAKE NO ACTION REGARDING THE NOTIFICATION WHICH THE TWO PARTIES HAD GIVEN BEFORE 1 FEBRUARY 1963 OF AN EXCLUSIVE SALES AGREEMENT CONCLUDED BETWEEN THEM IN 1959 ( SECOND QUESTION ).
2 THOSE QUESTIONS ARE REFERRED TO THE COURT IN THE CONTEXT OF PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED BY THE GRANTEE OF AN EXCLUSIVE CONCESSION FOR THE SALE OF POWER-DRIVEN CULTIVATORS AND SIMILAR DEVICES IN PARTICULAR IN BELGIUM AND THE GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG ( DE BLOOS ) AGAINST THE GRANTOR OF THE CONCESSION ( BOUYER ) FOR THE DISSOLUTION OF THE CONTRACT AND AN ORDER FOR THE PAYMENT OF DAMAGES FOR NON-PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT GRANTING THE CONCESSION , IN WHICH THE GRANTOR PLEADS IN ITS DEFENCE THAT THE CONTRACT IN DISPUTE IS VOID FOR INCOMPATIBILITY WITH ARTICLE 85 OF THE TREATY .
3 FOR THIS PURPOSE , BOUYER IS CHALLENGING THE COMMISSION ' S ASSESSMENT OF THAT CONTRACT IN ITS LETTER OF 29 APRIL 1969 , ACCORDING TO WHICH THE CONTRACT IS AN EXCLUSIVE DEALING AGREEMENT CAPABLE OF BENEFITING FROM EXEMPTION BY CATEGORIES UNDER REGULATION NO 67/67 .
4 IN SUBSTANCE , THE FIRST QUESTION IS DESIGNED TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE VALIDITY OF AN INDIVIDUAL DECISION OF A COMMUNITY INSTITUTION , THE LEGALITY OF WHICH IS DISPUTED BY A PARTY WHO IS OUT OF TIME FOR INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNULMENT AGAINST THAT DECISION UNDER ARTICLE 173 , CAN BE CALLED IN QUESTION BEFORE A NATIONAL COURT BY RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 177 OF THE TREATY . THE SECOND QUESTION IS DESIGNED TO ASCERTAIN , IN THE EVENT OF THE COURT ' S ANSWERING THE FIRST QUESTION IN THE AFFIRMATIVE , WHETHER THE COMMISSION ' S DECISION TO TAKE NO ACTION WITH REGARD TO THE NOTIFICATION OF THE AGREEMENT NOW IN DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN ACTION IS VALID FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTICLE 177 OF THE TREATY .
5 THE THIRD QUESTION CONCERNS THE EFFECTS OF REGULATION NO 67/67 AFTER 31 DECEMBER 1972 .
6 IN THE FOURTH QUESTION , THE NATIONAL COURT , ON THE SUPPOSITION THAT THE COMMISSION DID MAKE A MISTAKE IN 1969 IN TAKING THE VIEW THAT THE AGREEMENT IN DISPUTE COULD BENEFIT FROM EXEMPTION BY CATEGORIES , ASKS WHETHER IT IS POSSIBLE TO RECOGNIZE SUCH AGREEMENT AS PROVISIONALLY VALID BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT IT HAS BEEN NOTIFIED , AND WHAT THE EFFECTS OF SUCH VALIDITY ARE .
7 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE FOURTH QUESTION SHOULD BE ANSWERED FIRST , SINCE SUCH ANSWER MAY AFFECT THE NEED FOR AN ANSWER TO THE FIRST TWO QUESTIONS .
THE FOURTH QUESTION
8 THE COURT HAS ALREADY RULED , IN PARTICULAR IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 6