ITS ' INFORMAL ' APPROVAL DURING AN ORAL EXCHANGE OF VIEWS AND DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTIONS WHEN THE CONTESTED ORDER WAS NOTIFIED TO IT ON 15 APRIL 1981 .
( B)THE COMMISSION HAS NOT PROVED THAT THE ORDER WAS APPLIED TO POTATOES WHICH WERE PROPERLY IN FREE CIRCULATION IN A MEMBER STATE . IN REALITY , THE POTATOES WERE IMPORTED DIRECTLY FROM A NON-MEMBER COUNTRY BUT ROUTED THROUGH THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE .
( C)WITH REGARD TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE PROBLEM , IRELAND REFERS TO THE UNCERTAINTIES INHERENT IN THE DONCKERWOLCKE JUDGMENT WITH REGARD TO THE SCOPE OF THE RULES CONCERNING FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS ORIGINATING IN NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES . SINCE THIS CASE IS CONCERNED WITH AN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT , THE SPECIAL RULES OF ARTICLES 39 TO 46 OF THE TREATY PREVAIL OVER THE GENERAL RULES RELATING TO FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS WITH THE RESULT THAT THE PRINCIPLES RELATING TO FREE MOVEMENT ARE NOT APPLICABLE .
( D)IN PARTICULAR , IRELAND DRAWS ATTENTION TO THE RESTRICTION INHERENT IN THE TARIFF QUOTA ACCORDED TO CYPRUS FOR THE IMPORTATION OF NEW POTATOES AT REDUCED RATES OF DUTY . THAT QUOTA WAS INTENDED TO BE USED EXCLUSIVELY FOR IMPORTATION INTO THE UNITED KINGDOM . THE COMMISSION FAILED TO TAKE THE NECESSARY MEASURES TO PREVENT POTATOES IMPORTED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THAT QUOTA BEING RE-EXPORTED TO IRELAND . NO ACTION WAS TAKEN ON THE APPLICATION FOR SUCH MEASURES UNDER ARTICLE 115 WHICH WAS MADE FOLLOWING DELIVERY OF THE COMMISSION ' S REASONED OPINION . IRELAND CANNOT THEREFORE BE CRITICIZED FOR HAVING TAKEN UNILATERALLY THE MEASURES NECESSARY TO PROTECT ITS MARKETS .
( E)FINALLY , IRELAND CONTENDS THAT THE MEASURE ADOPTED IS JUSTIFIED BY ARTICLE 36 , WHICH ALLOWS MEMBER STATES TO INTRODUCE RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTS WHICH ARE JUSTIFIED ON GROUNDS OF PUBLIC POLICY . THE IMPORTATION OF POTATOES INTO IRELAND WOULD HAVE HAD SUCH DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES FOR THE DISPOSAL OF THE IRISH POTATO CROP THAT PROTECTION OF THE DOMESTIC MARKET BECAME A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY , PARTICULARLY SINCE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT SITUATION WERE LIKELY TO CONTINUE INDEFINITELY .
11 FOR ITS PART , THE COMMISSION DENIES THAT IT EVER APPROVED THE IRISH MEASURE , EVEN INFORMALLY . PRIOR CONSULTATIONS CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE OF CONSENT . MOREOVER , IT WAS NOT OBLIGED TO RESPOND AT ONCE TO THE NOTICE WHICH WAS GIVEN TO IT OF THE CONTESTED MEASURE . THE COMMISSION ALSO EMPHASIZES THAT ITS APPLICATION TO THE COURT IS CONCERNED WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF THE POTATOES ORDER 1981 AND NOT WITH PARTICULAR CASES OF IMPORTATION . IT DOES NOT THEREFORE NEED TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE CONCERNING SUCH IMPORTATIONS .
12 WITH REGARD TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE RULES GOVERNING FREE MOVEMENT LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 9 AND 10 OF THE TREATY , ON THE ONE HAND , AND THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 39 ET SEQ . ON THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY , ON THE OTHER , THE COMMISSION DRAWS ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT POTATOES ARE NOT SUBJECT