' ORGANIZATIONS .
10 IN THAT REGARD THE COMMISSION POINTS OUT THAT ARTICLE 15 OF THE REGULATION PROVIDES THAT , FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING WITHDRAWAL OPERATIONS , PRODUCERS ARE TO SET UP AN INTERVENTION FUND MAINTAINED BY CONTRIBUTIONS ASSESSED ON QUANTITIES OF PRODUCTS OFFERED FOR SALE . ACCORDING TO THE COMMISSION , COMMUNITY LEGISLATION THEREBY CREATES A CLOSE LINK BETWEEN THE VARIOUS ACTIVITIES OF THE ORGANIZATIONS , WHICH MUST SEEK TO IMPROVE PRODUCT QUALITY , CONCENTRATE SALES AND , IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES , WITHDRAW PRODUCTS FROM THE MARKET ( FINANCING SUCH WITHDRAWAL OUT OF THEIR SALES REVENUE ). ONLY ASSOCIATIONS WHICH ENGAGE IN ALL THOSE ACTIVITIES ARE PROPERLY CONSTITUTED FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMMUNITY LAW , AND ASSOCIATIONS WHICH ONLY UNDERTAKE THE WITHDRAWAL OF PRODUCTS - AS IS THE CASE WITH THE FOUR ORGANIZATIONS IN QUESTION - CANNOT FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY .
11 IT APPEARS FROM THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEN THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT AND THE COMMISSION , AS CONTAINED IN THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT , THAT AT THE TIME IT WAS COMMON GROUND BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT CERTAIN PRODUCERS ' ORGANIZATIONS IN ITALY , INCLUDING THE FOUR ORGANIZATIONS IN QUESTION , DID NOT SATISFY THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY COMMUNITY RULES . IN PARTICULAR , THEIR OPERATIONS WERE FRAGMENTARY IN THE SENSE THAT THEY CARRIED OUT OPERATIONS TO WITHDRAW FRUIT AND VEGETABLES FROM THE MARKET WITHOUT ENGAGING IN ANY OTHER ACTIVITY . THUS THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT ' S LETTER OF 27 MAY 1980 , WHICH GIVES AN ACCOUNT OF THE INQUIRY INTO PRODUCERS ' ORGANIZATIONS , STATES THAT FIVE ORGANIZATIONS , INCLUDING THE FOUR ORGANIZATIONS IN QUESTION , FAILED TO UNDERTAKE A RATIONALIZATION OF MARKETING ACTIVITIES , INASMUCH AS THEY WERE NOT IN A POSITION TO INSPECT THE PRODUCTS MARKETED BY THEIR MEMBERS . THE LETTER ADDS THAT IT IS DOUBTFUL WHETHER THOSE ORGANIZATIONS WOULD ADAPT THEMSELVES TO COMMUNITY LEGISLATION .
12 AT THE HEARING THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT , WHILST ACKNOWLEDGING THE SHORTCOMINGS OF THE FOUR ORGANIZATIONS IN QUESTION AND THE DOUBTS WHICH MIGHT EXIST AS TO THEIR ABILITY TO ADAPT THEMSELVES TO COMMUNITY RULES , CONFINED ITSELF TO STATING THAT THEY WERE SUBJECTED TO REGULAR INSPECTIONS SO THAT THEY COULD BE PROGRESSIVELY BROUGHT INTO LINE , BUT THAT THE COMMISSION HAD UNILATERALLY TERMINATED THAT PROCESS OF ADAPTATION BY CALLING FOR THE WITHDRAWAL BY THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT OF ITS RECOGNITION OF THE FOUR ORGANIZATIONS . THAT IS THEREFORE THE POINT WHICH SHOULD BE CONSIDERED .
13 IN THAT REGARD THE FOLLOWING POINTS EMERGE FROM THE DOCUMENTS LAID BEFORE THE COURT AND THE EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE PARTIES : THE ABOVE-MENTIONED LETTER OF THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT OF 27 MAY 1980 , IN WHICH IT CONCEDED THAT THE FOUR ORGANIZATIONS IN QUESTION HAD NOT BEEN OPERATING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMMUNITY RULES , EXPRESSED THE ITALIAN AUTHORITIES ' WISH TO REFRAIN FOR THE TIME BEING FROM ADOPTING ANY MEASURES WITHDRAWING RECOGNITION FROM THEM ; THE ORGANIZATIONS WERE BEING SUBJECTED TO CONTINUOUS MONITORING AND THE COMMISSION WOULD BE INFORMED OF THE