ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 91 ( 3 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , UNLESS THE COURT OF JUSTICE DECIDES OTHERWISE THE REMAINDER OF THE PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IS TO BE ORAL . THE COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT THERE ARE NO GROUNDS FOR OPENING THE ORAL PROCEDURE AND IT HAS DECIDED , AS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 91 ( 3 ), TO ADJUDICATE FORTHWITH UPON THE APPLICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENTS .
THE APPLICANT ' S APPLICATION IS INADMISSIBLE .
AS FAR AS THE APPLICATION FOR THE ANNULMENT PURSUANT TO THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE EEC TREATY IS CONCERNED THE REGULATION IN QUESTION CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A DECISION ADDRESSED TO THE APPLICANT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT ARTICLE OR TO BE A DECISION OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO IT , ALTHOUGH IN THE FORM OF A REGULATION . THE REGULATION IN QUESTION IS IN FACT PURELY LEGISLATIVE AND APPLIES TO EVERY WINE-PRODUCER IN THE COMMUNITY . MOREOVER IT SHOULD BE STRESSED THAT , AS THE COURT HAS ALREADY DECLARED , IN PARTICULAR IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 14 DECEMBER 1962 IN JOINED CASES 16 AND 17/62 ( CONFEDERATION NATIONALE DES PRODUCTEURS DE FRUITS ET DE LEGUMES AND OTHERS AND FEDERATION NATIONALE DES PRODUCTEURS DE RAISINS DE TABLE V COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY ( 1962 ) ECR 479 ), IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ACCEPT THE PRINCIPLE THAT AN ASSOCIATION , IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF A CATEGORY OF BUSINESSMEN , IS INDIVIDUALLY CONCERNED BY A MEASURE AFFECTING THE GENERAL INTERESTS OF THAT CATEGORY . THE ACTION UNDER THIS HEAD IS THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE .
AS FAR AS THE APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 175 OF THE TREATY IS CONCERNED THE ONLY LEGAL INSTRUMENT WHICH MIGHT POSSIBLY MEET THE APPLICANT ' S REQUEST WOULD HAVE BEEN A REGULATION AMENDING REGULATION NO 130/79 ; AN AMENDING REGULATION OF THIS KIND CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED AS A MEASURE WHICH MAY BE ADDRESSED TO THE APPLICANT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 175 . THE ACTION UNDER THIS HEAD IS THEREFORE ALSO INADMISSIBLE .
ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE COURT
HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS :
1 . THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE .
2 . THE APPLICANT SHALL PAY THE COSTS .
