IN POINT . IT STATED THAT THE RELEVANT DATE FOR THE COMPLETION OF CUSTOMS FORMALITIES FOR OPERATIONS IN THE SUGAR SECTOR WAS 1 JUNE 1978 , SINCE IN THE CASE OF THAT SECTOR THE NEW SYSTEM HAD ALREADY BEEN INTRODUCED ON THAT DATE BY REGULATION NO 1182/78 .
15 IN THE VIEW OF THE COMMISSION THE REASON FOR THE APPLICANTS ' CONVICTION THAT THEY ARE INDIVIDUALLY CONCERNED LIES IN THE FACT THAT THEY BELONG TO A GROUP OF EXPORTERS WHO BECAME SUCCESSFUL TENDERERS BEFORE A SPECIFIED DATE . HOWEVER , THAT GROUP OF EXPORTERS FORMS ONLY A PART OF THE UNSPECIFIED NUMBER OF TRADERS COVERED BY REGULATION NO 1380/75 , AS AMENDED BY REGULATION NO 1392/78 . THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANTS BELONG , WITHIN THE UNDEFINED GROUP OF PERSONS AFFECTED , TO A SUB-GROUP DISTINGUISHED BY A PARTICULAR FACTUAL SITUATION DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY ARE TO THAT EXTENT DISTINGUISHED INDIVIDUALLY BY THE REGULATION ITSELF . THE DISPUTED REGULATION DOES NOT DRAW ANY DISTINCTION DEPENDING ON WHETHER THE TRADERS CONCERNED PARTICIPATE IN INVITATIONS TO TENDER OR HAVE BEEN STATED TO BE SUCCESSFUL TENDERERS OR HAVE ALREADY MADE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THEIR COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS ; IT APPLIES THE SAME TREATMENT TO ALL THOSE WHO HAVE ENGAGED IN OPERATIONS FOR WHICH THE FORMALITIES HAVE NOT YET BEEN COMPLETED . IF THE APPLICANTS ' ARGUMENT WERE CORRECT THE RESULT WOULD BE THAT IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE , WITH REFERENCE TO SUITABLE FACTS , TO FORM A NUMBER OF SUB-GROUPS DISTINGUISHED BY INDIVIDUAL FEATURES WITHIN THE UNSPECIFIED NUMBER OF PERSONS AFFECTED . SUCH A VIEW WOULD MAKE THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE TREATY , WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE DECISION WHICH A PERSON CHALLENGES MUST BE OF INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO HIM , TO A GREAT EXTENT INEFFECTIVE .
16 ARTICLE 173 OF THE EEC TREATY ENTITLES A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL TO CHALLENGE A DECISION ADDRESSED TO HIM OR A DECISION WHICH , ALTHOUGH ADOPTED IN THE FORM OF A REGULATION OR A DECISION ADDRESSED TO ANOTHER PERSON , IS OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THE FORMER . THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF THAT PROVISION IS TO PREVENT THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS FROM BEING ABLE TO BAR PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED BY AN INDIVIDUAL AGAINST A DECISION OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO HIM BY SIMPLY CHOOSING THE FORM OF A REGULATION .
17 IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE APPLICATION IS ADMISSIBLE IT IS NECESSARY TO EXAMINE WHETHER THE MEASURES UNDER ATTACK ARE REGULATIONS OR DECISIONS WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE TREATY . UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 189 THE TEST FOR DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN A REGULATION AND A DECISION IS TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE MEASURE IN QUESTION HAS GENERAL APPLICATION OR NOT .
18 IT IS COMMON GROUND THAT THE COMMISSION HAS FIXED , AS FROM 1 MARCH 1973 , UNIFORM BASIC MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS CALCULATED WITH REFERENCE TO COMMUNITY GUARANTEED PRICES . CONSEQUENTLY THE AMOUNTS FIXED IN THIS WAY TAKE ACCOUNT , AS