22Although it has not formally raised an objection of inadmissibility, the Commission considers that the action is inadmissible because the applicant should first have tried to prevent the alleged loss from occurring by bringing an action before the competent national court. A claim for compensation under Article 178 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC) and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 288 EC) constitutes an ancillary remedy in the Commission's view, since the alleged loss was caused by a national administrative measure adopted in order to implement Community law (see the judgments of the Court of Justice in Case 119/88AERPO and Others v Commission [1990] ECR I-2189 and Case C-282/90Vreugdenhil v Commission [1992] ECR I-1937, paragraph 12, and those of the Court of First Instance in Case T-571/93Lefebvre and Others v Commission [1995] ECR II-2379 and Case T-93/95Laga v Commission [1998] ECR II-195, paragraph 33). It contends that it is for the competent national authorities applying the Community rules under a national administrative measure to establish reference quantities, in accordance with the provisions of Regulation No 2362/98 (see the judgments of the Court of First Instance in Case T-47/95Terres rouges and Others v Commission [1997] ECR II-481, paragraphs 57 and 59, and that of the Court of Justice in Case C-73/97 PFrance v Comafrica and Others [1999] ECR I-185, paragraph 40).