MEMBER STATES IS CONCERNED, IT SHOULD BE OBSERVED THAT THE ARRANGEMENT RELATES TO THE EXPORTATION OF STEEL TUBES AND PIPES MADE IN THE COMMUNITY AS SUCH, WITHOUT DRAWING ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE VARIOUS MEMBER STATES AND WITHOUT REFERRING TO THE TRADITIONAL PATTERNS OF EXPORTS FROM THOSE MEMBER STATES . THE ARRANGEMENT SETS THE COMMUNITY CEILING FOR EXPORTS OF STEEL TUBES AND PIPES AT 7.6% OF UNITED STATES APPARENT CONSUMPTION; UNDER REGULATION NO 60/85 THE COMMISSION IS TO CALCULATE THE QUANTITIES RESULTING FROM THAT CEILING, AND ANNEX III THERETO DIVIDES THOSE QUANTITIES AMONGST THE MEMBER STATES BY ALLOCATING TO EACH OF THEM A PERCENTAGE OF THE UNITED STATES APPARENT CONSUMPTION . HOWEVER, THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES IN THE MEMBER STATES ARE REQUIRED TO ISSUE THE EXPORT LICENCES TAKING ACCOUNT, INTER ALIA, OF "THE TRADITIONAL EXPORT PATTERNS OF UNDERTAKINGS" AND "THE RATES OF EXPORTS TO THE UNITED STATES AS TRADITIONALLY SPREAD OUT OVER THE YEAR" ( ARTICLE 5 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 60/85 ).
19 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS INCUMBENT ON THE APPLICANT TO DEMONSTRATE WHY THE COUNCIL, IN DIVIDING THE TOTAL COMMUNITY LIMIT AMONG THE MEMBER STATES, SHOULD HAVE HAD REGARD TO THE TRADITIONAL EXPORT PATTERNS OF THE MEMBER STATES AND HOW, IN THIS INSTANCE, IT HAD EXCEEDED THE MARGIN OF DISCRETION WHICH IT ENJOYED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THAT TASK . THE APPLICANT, HOWEVER, MADE NO MORE THAN THE GENERAL ASSERTION - WHICH IT DID NOT AMPLIFY AND WHICH WAS DENIED BY THE DEFENDANT INSTITUTIONS - THAT SOME MEMBER STATES, IN PARTICULAR THE NETHERLANDS, WERE GIVEN A NATIONAL QUOTA WHICH WAS UNDULY HIGH BECAUSE IT DID NOT REFLECT TRADITIONAL TRADE PATTERNS .
20 IT SHOULD FURTHER BE ADDED THAT THE FIGURES SUPPLIED BY THE PARTIES DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY APPRECIABLE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN, ON THE ONE HAND, THE VARIOUS MEMBER STATES' SHARES OF THE EXPORTS OF STEEL TUBES AND PIPES TO THE UNITED STATES DURING THE PERIOD BEFORE THE REGULATION WAS BROUGHT INTO FORCE AND, ON THE OTHER, THE ALLOCATION OF THE TOTAL COMMUNITY EXPORT LIMIT AMONG THE MEMBER STATES AS SHOWN IN ANNEX III TO REGULATION NO 60/85 .
21 CONSEQUENTLY, THE SUBMISSION BASED ON DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN MEMBER STATES CANNOT BE ACCEPTED EITHER .
22 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS AS A WHOLE THAT THE ILLEGALITY OF THE EXPORT LICENCE SCHEME SET UP BY REGULATIONS NOS 60 AND 61/85 HAS NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIATED . CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE OTHER CONDITIONS FOR ESTABLISHING LIABILITY ON THE PART OF THE COMMUNITY ARE SATISFIED .
23 THE APPLICATION MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED AS UNFOUNDED .
Decision on costs
COSTS
24 UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY IS TO BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS . SINCE THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED IN ITS SUBMISSIONS, IT MUST BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
Operative part
On those grounds,
THE COURT ( Sixth Chamber )
hereby :
( 1 ) Dismisses the application;
( 2 ) Orders the applicant to