THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH DAMAGE , PRINCIPALLY FOR THE FOLLOWING TWO REASONS .
28 IN THE FIRST PLACE , THE FIGURES SHOW THAT SPANISH EXPORTS OF TABLE WINE HAVE DECREASED SUBSTANTIALLY WHEREAS EXPORTS OF QUALITY WINE HAVE BARELY FALLEN OR HAVE EVEN INCREASED IN SOME CASES , FOR EXAMPLE THAT OF WHITE WINE . THE FIGURES PRODUCED FOR JANUARY AND FEBRUARY 1986 SHOW THAT A QUITE CONSIDERABLE FALL IN EXPORTS HAD ALREADY OCCURRED IN RESPECT OF TABLE WINES BUT NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION FOR THAT FALL HAS BEEN GIVEN . CONSEQUENTLY , IN THE LIGHT OF THE INFORMATION NOW BEFORE THE COURT , THE PRESIDENT CONSIDERS THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH , AT THE MOMENT , ANY CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STM AND THE DECREASE IN THE LEVEL OF EXPORTS OF CERTAIN TYPES OF WINE .
29 IN THE SECOND PLACE , IT MUST BE RECALLED THAT ARTICLE 3 OF REGULATION NO 647/86 PROVIDES THAT AN STM LICENCE IS TO BE VALID FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR MONTHS FROM THE DAY ON WHICH IT IS APPLIED FOR . THE COMMISSION STATED AT THE HEARING THAT AS A RESULT OF ADMINISTRATIVE DIFFICULTIES IT HAD BEEN IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE THE SYSTEM OF STM LICENCES REQUIRING THE LODGING OF A SECURITY OPERATIONAL IN PRACTICE UNTIL 13 MARCH 1986 . IT THEREFORE APPEARS THAT , WHATEVER THEIR RELEVANCE , THE STATISTICS PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT DO NOT RELATE TO A SUFFICIENTLY LONG PERIOD OF TIME TO ENABLE THE COURT TO OBTAIN AN ACCURATE PICTURE OF THE SITUATION . AT THE VERY LEAST IT APPEARS THAT THE MINIMUM REFERENCE PERIOD SHOULD BE FOUR MONTHS FROM THE ACTUAL ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE SYSTEM , THAT IS TO SAY IT SHOULD EXTEND AT LEAST UNTIL 13 JULY 1986 . SINCE ARTICLE 1 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 647/86 FIXED THE INDICATIVE IMPORT CEILINGS FOR SPANISH VITICULTURAL PRODUCTS IMPORTED INTO THE COMMUNITY IN RESPECT OF THE 1985/86 MARKETING YEAR FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN 1 MARCH 1986 AND 31 AUGUST 1986 , IT WOULD APPEAR MORE LOGICAL TO EXTEND THE REFERENCE PERIOD TO THE LATTER DATE .
30 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE STM WOULD CAUSE SERIOUS DAMAGE TO EXPORTS IN THE WINE SECTOR . WITH REGARD TO THE IRREPARABLE NATURE OF ANY DAMAGE , THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN UNABLE TO SHOW THAT A FALL IN EXPORTS , IN PARTICULAR WHERE IT AFFECTS ONLY THE TABLE WINES SECTOR , NECESSARILY RESULTS IN A LOSS OF CERTAIN MARKETS .
31 ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAS EMPHASIZED ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS THAT THE ISSUE OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE MAIN APPLICATION CANNOT , IN PRINCIPLE , BE EXAMINED IN PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO AN APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES AND MUST BE RESERVED FOR THE EXAMINATION OF THE MAIN APPLICATION SO AS NOT TO PREJUDICE THAT ISSUE ( SEE , IN PARTICULAR , CASE 75/72 R PERINCIOLO V COUNCIL ( 1972 ) ECR 1201 ,