51 ELETTRONICA SICULA (JUDGMENT) lations" cannot mean that, if an act is in conformity with the municipal law and regulations, that would of itself exclude any possibility that it was an act in breach of the FCN Treaty. 72. The reference to conformity with "the applicable laws and regulations" surely means no more than that Italian corporations and associations controlled by United States nationals must conform to the local applicable laws and regulations; moreover, they must do so even if they believe a law or regulation to be in breach of the FCN Treaty, and, indeed, even if it were in breach of the FCN Treaty. This the Applicant has never denied. Raytheon and Machlett did conform to the terms of the requisition. Indeed they had no other choice. 73. The question still remains, therefore, whether the requisition was or was not a violation of Article III, paragraph 2. This question arises irrespective of the position in municipal law. Compliance with municipal law and compliance with the provisions of a treaty are different questions. What is a breach of treaty may be lawful in the municipal law and what is unlawful in the municipal law may be wholly innocent of violation of a treaty provision. Even had the Prefect held the requisition to be entirely justified in Italian law, this would not exclude the possibility that it was a violation of the FCN Treaty. 74. This question whether or not certain acts could constitute a breach of the treaty right to be permitted to control and manage is one which must be appreciated in each case having regard to the meaning and purpose of the FCN Treaty. Clearly the right cannot be interpreted as a sort of warranty that the normal exercise of control and management shall never be disturbed. Every system of law must provide, for example, for interferences with the normal exercise of rights during public emergencies and the like. In this respect considerable interest must attach to the reasons given by the Prefect in his decision, and to the legal analysis of that decision by the Court of Appeal of Palermo. 75. The Prefect took note in his decision of the fact that the Mayor had relied on legislative authority empowering him to act in cases of "grave public necessity and unforeseen urgency". He did not find that those conditions were absent; he however annulled the requisition on the basis primarily of the following considerations : "Non v'ha dubbio che anche sepossono considerarsi, in linea del tutto teorica, sussistenti, nella fattispecie, gli estremi della grave necessità pubblica e della contingibilità ed urgenza che determinarono I'adozione delprovvedimento, ilfine cui tendeva la requisizione non poteva trovare pratica realizzazione con ilprovvedimento stesso, tanto è ver0 che nessuna ripresa di attività dell'azienda vi è statu a seguito della requisizione, nè avrebbe potuto esserci. Manca, pertanto, nelprovvedimento, genericamente, la causa giuridica chepossa giustificarlo e renderlo operante. " There has been some controversy between the Parties as to the translation