RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE APPLICATION SHOULD STATE ' ' THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE APPLICATION IS BASED ' ' . ON THE OTHER HAND , THE SECOND APPLICATION MEETS THAT REQUIREMENT , CLARIFYING THE SAME SUBMISSION BY RELIANCE ON AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NON-DISCRIMINATION AND OF PROPORTIONALITY . AS THE TWO CASES ARE JOINED , THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE SECOND APPLICATION COVERS ANY INADMISSIBILITY OF THE FIRST AND THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD IN SUPPORT OF THE SUBMISSION IN THE REPLY IN CASE 26/79 MUST THEREFORE BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN DECIDING THE JOINED CASES .
( B ) THE OBJECTION OF LACK OF PROPORTIONALITY
5 THE APPLICANT ARGUES THAT TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH DECISION NO 962/77 WAS NOT REPLACED BY DECISION NO 3000/77 OF 28 DECEMBER 1977 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL L 352 , P . 1 ) WHICH WAS ACCOMPANIED BY THE INTRODUCTION OF ' ' BASIC PRICES ' ' APPLICABLE TO IMPORTS FROM NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES ( COMMISSION STATEMENT PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL JOURNAL L 353 OF 31 DECEMBER 1977 ), IT WAS ' ' UNAVAILING , NOT TO SAY DAMAGING , AND WAS AN EXTREME CASE OF VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY ' ' . WHILST , ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT , DECISION NO 962/77 WAS INTENDED TO REMEDY THE COLLAPSE OF THE MARKET FOR CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT BARS AND THE DETERIORATING FINANCIAL POSITION OF UNDERTAKINGS , ' ' THE MEANS USED WERE WHOLLY INADEQUATE ' ' .
6 IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 24 OCTOBER 1973 ( CASE 5/73 BALKAN ( 1973 ) ECR AT P . 1111 ) THE COURT HAS ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT ALTHOUGH IN EXERCISING THEIR POWERS THE INSTITUTIONS MUST ENSURE THAT THE BURDENS WHICH COMMERCIAL OPERATORS ARE REQUIRED TO BEAR ARE NO GREATER THAN IS REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THE AIM WHICH THE AUTHORITIES ARE TO ACCOMPLISH , IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW THAT THAT OBLIGATION MUST BE MEASURED IN RELATION TO THE INDIVIDUAL SITUATION OF ANY ONE PARTICULAR GROUP OF OPERATORS . EVEN IF IT MAY BE ADMITTED THAT GENERAL DECISION NO 962/77 WAS DEFECTIVE AND INSUFFICIENT IN REGARD TO THE MATTER OF IMPORTS FROM NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES , THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE APPLICANT ' S ARGUMENTS TO SHOW THAT THOSE RULES IMPOSED RESTRICTIONS WHICH WERE OUT OF KEEPING WITH THE COMMON INTEREST AND THAT THEY CONSTITUTED A DISPROPORTIONATE MEASURE IN RELATION TO THE AIM WHICH THEY SOUGHT TO ACHIEVE . IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT OBJECTION CAN ONLY BE DISMISSED .
( C ) THE OBJECTION OF DISCRIMINATION
7 RELYING ON THE FACTS DESCRIBED ABOVE , THE APPLICANT ARGUES THAT THE COMMUNITY UNDERTAKINGS BOUND BY DECISION NO 962/77 SUFFERED DISCRIMINATION IN RELATION TO UNDERTAKINGS IN NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES WHICH WERE ABLE TO ACT IN COMPLETE FREEDOM UP TO 31 DECEMBER 1977 . IT BELIEVES THAT IT HAS THUS BEEN A VICTIM OF THAT FORM OF DISCRIMINATION CONSISTING OF TREATING SIMILAR SITUATIONS UNEQUALLY .
8 THERE IS HOWEVER NO SIMILARITY OF SITUATION HERE ; DECISION NO 962/77 OF