AND THE PROCEDURE WHICH FORMED THE BACKGROUND TO ITS EVALUATION OF THE FACTS , WITHOUT ITS BEING NECESSARY TO SPECIFY THE FACTS THEMSELVES . WHEN THE FIXING OF FREE-AT-FRONTIER PRICES MUST BE EFFECTED WITHIN A SHORT TIME , TO REQUIRE THE ADMINISTRATION TO SET OUT IN DETAIL , IN THE STATEMENT OF THE REASONS ON WHICH THE MEASURE IS BASED , ALL THE DATA ON WHICH THE CALCULATION WAS BASED WOULD GO BEYOND WHAT MAY REASONABLY BE DEMANDED . THE COURT THEREFORE HELD THAT THE NEED TO PROTECT PERSONS CONCERNED AND THE NEED FOR PROPER JUDICIAL REVIEW WOULD BE MET IF THE COMMISSION PUT AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE PARTIES THE TECHNICAL DATA USED BY IT IN FIXING THE FREE-AT-FRONTIER PRICES WHENEVER THAT DECISION WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE A COURT HAVING JURISDICTION IN THE MATTER .
22 IT SHOULD HOWEVER BE POINTED OUT THAT IT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH GOOD ADMINISTRATION FOR THE COMMISSION PERIODICALLY TO PUBLISH FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE TRADERS CONCERNED THE MAIN DATA TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN FIXING CIF PRICES . SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT FOR THE SUPPLY OF PERIODIC INFORMATION DOES NOT HOWEVER INCLUDE A DUTY TO REPLY TO INDIVIDUAL REQUESTS SUCH AS THAT MADE BY THE APPLICANT OR TO ALLOW INSPECTION AT THE COMMISSION ' S PREMISES OF ALL THE DATA WHICH IT HAS ASSEMBLED .
23 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE COMMISSION IS UNDER A GENERAL DUTY TO PROVIDE ANY TRADER WHO SO REQUESTS WITH THE DATA ON WHICH THE CALCULATION OF THE CIF PRICES WAS BASED .
24 SIMILARLY , IT CANNOT BE STATED THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF LEGAL CERTAINTY AND OF THE PROTECTION OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION MAY ENTAIL THE RIGHT FOR ANY PERSON CONCERNED , AS THE APPLICANT CLAIMS , TO BE ENABLED TO CHECK WHETHER THE LEGISLATION IN FORCE HAS BEEN CORRECTLY APPLIED . SUCH A REVIEW WOULD BE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF ANY COURT CALLED UPON TO APPLY THE REGULATIONS .
25 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE CONSIDERATIONS SET OUT ABOVE THAT THE COMMISSION HAD IN THE PRESENT CASE NO DUTY TO PROVIDE , AT THE APPLICANT ' S REQUEST , THE DATA ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE CIF PRICES WERE FIXED .
26 ALL THE CLAIMS MADE BY THE APPLICANT MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED .
27 THE APPLICATION MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY .
Decision on costs
COSTS
28 ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE PROVIDES THAT THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY IS TO BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS . AS THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED IN ITS SUBMISSIONS IT MUST BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
Operative part
ON THOSE GRONDS ,
THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER )
HEREBY :
1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATION IN ITS ENTIRETY ;
2 . ORDERS THE APPLICANT TO PAY THE COSTS .