TREATY WAS INCLUDED AS AN AUTONOMOUS FORM OF ACTION, WITH A PARTICULAR PURPOSE TO FULFIL WITHIN THE SYSTEM OF ACTIONS, AND SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS ON ITS USE BY ITS SPECIFIC NATURE .
SUCH AN ACTION DIFFERS FROM AN APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT IN THAT ITS END IS NOT THE CANCELLATION OF A PARTICULAR MEASURE BUT COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY AN INSTITUTION IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS DUTIES .
THE ACTION FOR DAMAGES SEEKS ONLY RECOGNITION THAT A RIGHT TO COMPENSATION EXISTS AND, THEREFORE, SATISFACTION SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE APPLICANT .
5 THE COMMISSION THEN MAINTAINS THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE SENT BACK TO PURSUE ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE EVENT GIVING RISE TO THE PRESENT DISPUTE WAS THE REFUSAL BY THE COMPETENT CUSTOMS OFFICE IN THAT MEMBER STATE TO GRANT THE APPLICANT COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS ON THE EXPORTS IT HAD MADE TO THIRD COUNTRIES .
IF SUCH A PROCEDURE WERE FOLLOWED IT WOULD RESULT IN A REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE TREATY FROM THE GERMAN COURTS OF THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF REGULATIONS NOS 1014/71 AND 1687/71 .
6 BUT THE COURT ALREADY HAS THE CASE BEFORE IT AND WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION, AND IS THEREFORE BOUND TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THESE REGULATIONS ARE TAINTED WITH THE ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES .
IT WOULD NOT BE IN KEEPING WITH THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF PROCEDURAL EFFICIENCY TO COMPEL THE APPLICANT TO HAVE RECOURSE TO NATIONAL REMEDIES AND THUS TO WAIT FOR A CONSIDERABLE LENGTH OF TIME BEFORE A FINAL DECISION ON HIS CLAIM IS MADE .
7 THE ACTION IS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE .
ON THE SUBSTANCE
8 SINCE THE DISPUTED ACTIONS ARE OF A LEGISLATIVE NATURE AND CONSTITUTE MEASURES TAKEN IN THE SPHERE OF ECONOMIC POLICY, THE COMMUNITY IS NOT LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGE SUFFERED BY INDIVIDUALS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THOSE ACTIONS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 215, SECOND PARAGRAPH, OF THE TREATY, UNLESS A SUFFICIENTLY FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF A SUPERIOR RULE OF LAW FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL HAS OCCURRED .
FOR THAT REASON THE COURT MUST FIRST CONSIDER WHETHER SUCH A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED .
9 REGULATION NO 974/71 WAS AMENDED BY COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 2746/72 OF 19 DECEMBER, 1972 ( OJ L 291, P . 248 ), WHICH CAME INTO FORCE AS FROM 1 JULY 1972 .
HOWEVER, SINCE THE EVENTS FORMING THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE DISPUTE TOOK PLACE BEFORE THAT DATE, THE ACTION WILL BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF REGULATION NO 974/71, WHICH WILL ACCORDINGLY BE THE ONLY ONE REFERRED TO IN WHAT FOLLOWS .
THE FIRST SUBMISSION
10 1 . THE APPLICANT MAINTAINS THAT THE COMMISSION WAS UNDER A DUTY IN PRINCIPLE TO FIX COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS FOR ALL THE PRODUCTS LISTED IN ARTICLE 1 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 974/71; THIS WAS BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE SAME REGULATION