Wirtschaftsvereinigung Eisen und Stahlindustrie, Gussstahlwerk Carl Bonnhoff, Gussstahlwerk Witten, Ruhrstahl and Eisenwerk Annahuette Alfred Zeller v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community. (Procedure ) [1958] EUECJ C-13/57 (21 June 1958)

[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [ DONATE ] Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) >> Wirtschaftsvereinigung Eisen und Stahlindustrie, Gussstahlwerk Carl Bonnhoff, Gussstahlwerk Witten, Ruhrstahl and Eisenwerk Annahuette Alfred Zeller v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community. (Procedure ) [1958] EUECJ C-13/57 (21 June 1958) URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1958/C1357.html Cite as: [1958] EUECJ C-13/57 [ New search ] [ Help ] IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The source of this judgment is the web site of the Court of Justice of the European Communities . The information in this database has been provided free of charge and is subject to a Court of Justice of the European Communities disclaimer and a copyright notice . This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment. 61957J0013 Judgment of the Court of 21 June 1958. Wirtschaftsvereinigung Eisen- und Stahlindustrie, Gußstahlwerk Carl Bönnhoff, Gußstahlwerk Witten, Ruhrstahl and Eisenwerk Annahütte Alfred Zeller v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community. Case 13-57. European Court reports French edition 1958 Page 00263 Dutch edition 1958 Page 00281 German edition 1958 Page 00273 Italian edition 1958 Page 00253 English special edition 1957-1958 Page 00265 Danish special edition 1954-1964 Page 00109 Greek special edition 1954-1964 Page 00275 Portuguese special edition 1954-1961 Page 00265 ++++ 1 . PROCEDURE - APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT - GENERAL DECISION - ASSOCIATION OF UNDERTAKINGS AS APPLICANT - CAPACITY TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF JUSTICE 2 . PROCEDURE - APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT - GENERAL DECISION - ASSOCIATION OF UNDERTAKINGS AS APPLICANT - MISUSE OF POWERS - ADMISSIBILITY 3 . PROCEDURE - APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT - GENERAL DECISION - ASSOCIATION OF UNDERTAKINGS AS APPLICANT - MISUSE OF POWERS - ADMISSIBILITY 4 . PROCEDURE - APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT - JOINT APPLICATION 5 . PROCEDURE - APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT - GENERAL DECISION - GROUP OF INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS - ADMISSIBILITY 6 . PROCEDURE - APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT - GENERAL DECISION - UNDERTAKING OR ASSOCIATION OF UNDERTAKINGS AS APPLICANT - SUBMISSION BASED ON INFRINGEMENT OF THE TREATY - ADMISSIBILITY 7 . FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS - INDIRECT MEANS OF ACTION 8 . FUNDAMENTAL OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMUNITY ( A ) DUTIES OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY - IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLES 2 TO 5 ( B ) RECONCILIATION OF THE VARIOUS OBJECTIVES OF ARTICLE 3 9 . FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS - SYSTEM OF ALLOCATION - DIRECT ACTION ON PRODUCTION 10 . INFLUENCE ON INVESTMENTS - FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS - INDIRECT ACTION REGARDING INVESTMENTS 11 . FINANCIAL CHARGE IMPOSED UPON UNDERTAKINGS - FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT - SUCH ARRANGEMENTS NOT TO BE RESTRICTIVE ( CF . PARAGRAPH 1, SUMMARY IN CASE 8/57 OF 21 JUNE 1958 ): 1 . AN ASSOCIATION OF UNDERTAKINGS HAS CAPACITY TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF JUSTICE AGAINST A GENERAL DECISION IF THAT DECISION IS CAPABLE OF AFFECTING CERTAIN INTERESTS, EVEN THOUGH PERHAPS DIVERGENT, WHICH HAVE BEEN ENTRUSTED TO IT ( TREATY, SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 33, ARTICLES 48 AND 80 ). */ 657J0008 /*. ( CF . PARAGRAPH 2, SUMMARY IN CASE 8/57 OF 21 JUNE 1958 ): 2 . PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED BY AN ASSOCIATION OF UNDERTAKINGS ARE ADMISSIBLE IF THE ASSOCIATION FORMALLY ALLEGES THAT ON ONE OR MORE OCCASIONS A MISUSE OF POWERS AFFECTING ITS MEMBERS HAS BEEN COMMITTED, IF IT PRODUCES A RELEVANT STATEMENT OF THE REASONS LEADING IT TO BELIEVE THAT THERE HAS BEEN A MISUSE OF POWERS ON ONE OR MORE OCCASIONS AND IF THE PURPOSE OF THE ARGUMENTS UPON WHICH IT RELIES IS TO OBTAIN A DECLARATION THAT, WHEN THE HIGH AUTHORITY ADOPTED THE CONTESTED PROVISIONS, IT EXERCISED THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON IT BY THE TREATY FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN THOSE FOR WHICH THEY WERE CONFERRED UPON IT ( TREATY, SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 33 ). */ 657J0008 /*. ( CF . PARAGRAPH 1, SUMMARY IN CASE 10/57 OF 26 JUNE 1958 ): 3 . PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED BY AN UNDERTAKING AGAINST A GENERAL DECISION ARE ADMISSIBLE IF IT MAINTAINS THAT IT HAS BEEN ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE CONTESTED PROVISIONS AND IF IT FORMALLY ALLEGES THAT ON ONE OR MORE OCCASIONS A MISUSE OF POWERS AFFECTING IT HAS BEEN COMMITTED, IF IT PRODUCES A RELEVANT STATEMENT OF THE REASONS LEADING IT TO BELIEVE THAT THERE HAS BEEN A MISUSE OF POWERS ON ONE OR MORE OCCASIONS AND IF THE PURPOSE OF THE ARGUMENTS UPON WHICH IT RELIES IS TO OBTAIN A DECLARATION THAT, WHEN THE HIGH AUTHORITY ADOPTED THE CONTESTED PROVISIONS, IT EXERCISED THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON IT BY THE TREATY FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN THOSE FOR WHICH THEY WERE CONFERRED UPON IT ( TREATY, SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 33 ). */ 657J0010 /*. 4 . THE SUBMISSION OF A JOINT APPLICATION IS VALID SINCE ALL THE PARTIES CONTEST THE DECISION ADOPTED ON THE SAME POINTS AND RELY ON THE SAME SUBMISSIONS . 5 . A DECISION IS GENERAL WHEN IT ESTABLISHES A LEGISLATIVE PRINCIPLE, IMPOSES ABSTRACT CONDITIONS FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION AND SETS OUT THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES ENTAILED THEREBY . SUCH A GENERAL DECISION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A GROUP OF INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS AFFECTING APPLICANTS EVEN THOUGH IT AFFECTS THEM INDIVIDUALLY ( TREATY, SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 33 ). 6 . PURSUANT TO THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 33 OF THE TREATY UNDERTAKINGS OR THE ASSOCIATIONS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 48 MAY ONLY INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GENERAL DECISIONS IF THEY CONSIDER THAT SUCH DECISIONS INVOLVE A MISUSE OF POWERS AFFECTING THEM . ACCORDINGLY COMPLAINTS BASED ON INFRINGEMENT OF THE TREATY ARE INADMISSIBLE . ( CF . PARAGRAPH 3, SUMMARY IN CASE 8/57 OF 21 JUNE 1958 ): 7 . THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 53 ARE ARRANGEMENTS BASED ON THE TRANSFER OF RESOURCES, IN PARTICULAR ARRANGEMENTS IN THE NATURE OF EQUALIZATION OR COMPENSATION . THEY CONSTITUTE " INDIRECT " INTERVENTION PROCEDURES, WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 57 OF THE TREATY, AS DISTINCT FROM THE DIRECT MEANS OF ACTION SUCH AS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PRODUCTION QUOTAS ( ARTICLE 58 ) OR THE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES ( ARTICLE 59 ) ( TREATY, ARTICLES 53 AND 57 ). */ 657J0008 /*. ( CF . PARAGRAPH 4 ( A ), SUMMARY IN CASE 8/57 OF 21 JUNE 1958 ): 8 ( A ) THE EXPRESS REFERENCE MADE TO ARTICLE 3 IN ARTICLE 53 DOES NOT RELEASE THE HIGH AUTHORITY FROM ITS DUTY TO OBSERVE THE OTHER ARTICLES OF THE TREATY AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLES 2, 4 AND 5 . ARTICLES 2 TO 5 MUST ALWAYS BE OBSERVED BECAUSE THEY ESTABLISH THE FUNDAMENTAL OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMUNITY . THOSE PROVISIONS ARE EQUALLY BINDING AND MUST BE READ TOGETHER IF THEY ARE TO BE PROPERLY APPLIED ( TREATY, ARTICLES 2, 3, 4, 5 AND 53 ). */ 657J0008 /*. ( CF . PARAGRAPH 4 ( B ), SUMMARY IN CASE 8/57 OF 21 JUNE 1958 ): ( B ) THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 2 TO 5 CAN STAND BY THEMSELVES AND ACCORDINGLY, IN SO FAR AS THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ADOPTED IN ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THE TREATY, THEY ARE DIRECTLY APPLICABLE . IF THEY HAVE BEEN ADOPTED OR ARE GOVERNED BY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY WORDS RELATING TO THE SAME PROVISION MUST BE CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE AND APPLIED TOGETHER . IN PRACTICE IT WILL ALWAYS BE NECESSARY TO RECONCILE TO A CERTAIN DEGREE THE VARIOUS OBJECTIVES OF ARTICLE 3 SINCE IT IS CLEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO ATTAIN THEM ALL FULLY AND SIMULTANEOUSLY AS THOSE OBJECTIVES CONSTITUTE GENERAL PRINCIPLES WHICH MUST BE OBSERVED AND HARMONIZED AS FAR AS POSSIBLE ( TREATY, ARTICLES 2, 3, 4 AND 53 ). */ 657J0008 /*. ( CF . PARAGRAPH 6, SUMMARY IN CASE 8/57 OF 21 JUNE 1958 ): 9 . SINCE THE PROCEDURES FOR WHICH PROVISION IS MADE IN ARTICLE 59 AND IN ANNEX II TO THE TREATY CONSIST EXCLUSIVELY IN ESTABLISHING CONSUMPTION PRIORITIES AND ALLOCATING RESOURCES THEY ARE DIRECTLY AND SOLELY OF A QUANTITATIVE NATURE AND ARE THEREBY DISTINCT FROM ALL INDIRECT ACTION ON PRODUCTION BY MEANS OF PRICES WITHOUT RESTRICTION OF THE VOLUME OF PURCHASES, LIKE THE ACTION EFFECTED BY A FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT ESTABLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 53 ( B ) ( TREATY, ARTICLES 53 ( B ) AND 59 AND ANNEX II ). */ 657J0008 /*. ( CF . PARAGRAPH 7, SUMMARY IN CASE 8/57 OF 21 JUNE 1958 ): 10 . THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 54 IN NO WAY IMPEDE THE ADOPTION OF MEASURES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 3, 5, 53 ( B ), 57 AND 59 OF THE TREATY, TAKEN TOGETHER, THE APPLICATION OF WHICH MAY INFLUENCE INVESTMENTS PLANNED BY UNDERTAKINGS . IN PARTICULAR THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 53 ( B ), WHICH THE HIGH AUTHORITY IS ENTITLED TO USE AS AN INDIRECT MEANS OF ACTION ON PRODUCTION, ENTAIL BY THEIR NATURE RESULTS CAPABLE OF AFFECTING THE PLANS OF UNDERTAKINGS, SUCH AS, FOR EXAMPLE, THEIR INVESTMENT PLANS ( TREATY, ARTICLES 53 ( B ) AND 54 ). */ 657J0008 /*. ( CF . PARAGRAPH 8, SUMMARY IN CASE 12/57 OF 26 JUNE 1958 ): 11 . ALTHOUGH ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFY MEASURES CONCERNING THE FINANCIAL CHARGE IMPOSED UPON UNDERTAKINGS THOSE MEASURES MUST NOT BE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN IS NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT ( ARTICLES 53 ( B ) AND 65 ( 2 ) ( B )). */ 657J0012 /*. IN CASE 13/57 1 . WIRTSCHAFTSVEREINIGUNG EIESEN-UND STAHLINDUSTRIE, A TRADE ASSOCIATION GOVERNED BY GERMAN LAW, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE IN DUESSELDORF, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, HANS-GUENTHER SOHL; 2 . GUSSTAHLWERK CARL BOENNHOFF, A PARTNERSHIP WITH LIMITED LIABILITY GOVERNED BY GERMAN LAW WITH ITS HEAD OFFICE IN WETTER ( RUHR ), REPRESENTED BY WALDEMAR BOENNOHOFF AND HORST PEGAU; 3 . GUSSTAHLWERK WITTEN, A LIMITED COMPANY GOVERNED BY GERMAN LAW, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE IN WITTEN, REPRESENTED BY RUDOLF KOEGL, CHAIRMAN, AND ADOLF RICHTER, DIRECTOR; 4 . RUHRSTAHL, A LIMITED COMPANY GOVERNED BY GERMAN LAW, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE IN HATTINGEN AND ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES IN WITTEN, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KURT SCHMITZ, AND A MEMBER OF ITS BOARD OF MANAGEMENT, RUDOLF SPOLDERS; 5 . EISENWERK ANNAHUETTE ALFRED ZELLER, HAMMERAU, UPPER BAVARIA, REPRESENTED BY MR KURT ZELLER, ASSISTED BY HEINRICH LIETZMANN OF THE ESSEN BAR, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICES OF ANDRE ROBERT, 31 BOULEVARD JOSEPH-II, APPLICANTS, V HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, FRANS VAN HOUTEN, ACTING AS AGENT, ASSISTED BY ADOLF SCHUELE, PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TUEBINGEN, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT ITS OFFICE AT 2 PLACE DE METZ, DEFENDANT, APPLICATION FOR THE ANNULMENT OF ARTICLES 3 ( 1 ) ( B ), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 ( 1 ) ( F ) AND ( G ), 16 ( 1 ) AND 17 OF DECISION NO 2/57 OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY OF 26 JANUARY 1957 PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL OFFICIEL NO 4 OF 28 JANUARY 1957, AND ALL OTHER PROVISIONS IN SO FAR AS THEY RELATE TO THE SUPPLEMENTARY CONTRIBUTIONS IMPOSED UPON THE EXCESS CONSUMPTION OF FERROUS SCRAP, P . 276 A - ADMISSIBILITY ACCORDING TO THE STATUTES OF THE FIRST APPLICANT ( WIRTSCHAFTSVEREINIGUNG EISEN-UND STAHLINDUSTRIE ) IT IS A PRIVATE ASSOCIATION GOVERNED BY GERMAN LAW HAVING AS ITS OBJECT THE FURTHERANCE AND DEFENCE OF THE GENERAL INTERESTS OF ITS MEMBERS WHO ARE PRODUCERS OF IRON AND STEEL . IT IS COMMON GROUND THAT THE CONTESTED PROVISIONS OF GENERAL DECISION NO 2/57 ARE CAPABLE OF AFFECTING CERTAIN, EVEN THOUGH PERHAPS DIVERGENT, INTERESTS, ENTRUSTED TO THE APPLICANT . THE APPLICANT THUS HAS CAPACITY TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 33, 48 AND 80 OF THE TREATY . ACCORDING TO THE STATUTES OF THE SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH AND FIFTH APPLICANTS THEY ARE PRIVATE UNDERTAKINGS GOVERNED BY GERMAN LAW; THEY HAVE AS THEIR OBJECT THE PRODUCTION OF STEEL WITHIN THE TERRITORIES REFERRED TO IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 79 OF THE TREATY . PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 33 AND 80 OF THE TREATY THEY ACCORDINGLY HAVE CAPACITY TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY BEFORE THE COURT OF JUSTICE . PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 33 OF THE TREATY THE UNDERTAKINGS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 80 MAY INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNULMENT OF GENERAL DECISIONS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY WHICH THEY CONSIDER TO INVOLVE A MISUSE OF POWERS AFFECTING THEM . THE SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH AND FIFTH APPLICANTS MAINTAIN THAT THEY ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE CONTESTED PROVISIONS BECAUSE THEY HAVE GREAT DIFFICULTY IN EFFECTING ECONOMIES IN FERROUS SCRAP AND CONSEQUENTLY THEY MUST PAY THE SUPPLEMENTARY CHARGE IF THEY INCREASE THEIR CONSUMPTION OF PURCHASED SCRAP . DECISION NO 2/57 REFERS TO THE UNDERTAKINGS LISTED IN ARTICLE 80 OF THE TREATY AS A WHOLE IN SO FAR AS THEY USE FERROUS SCRAP, BOTH UNDERTAKINGS PRESENTLY IN EXISTENCE AND THOSE WHICH WERE ESTABLISHED DURING THE PERIOD WHEN THE DECISION WAS IN FORCE . IT IS A GENERAL DECISION; IT ESTABLISHES A LEGISLATIVE PRINCIPLE, IMPOSES ABSTRACT CONDITIONS FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION AND SETS OUT THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES ENTAILED THEREBY . IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO UPHOLD THE ALLEGATION OF THE SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH AND FIFTH APPLICANTS THAT SUCH A GENERAL DECISION ALSO CONSTITUTES AN INDIVIDUAL DECISION OR A GROUP OF INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS AFFECTING THEM . THE FIRST APPLICANT FORMALLY ALLEGES THAT ON ONE OR MORE OCCASIONS A MISUSE OF POWERS AFFECTING ITS MEMBERS HAS BEEN COMMITTED . THE SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH AND FIFTH APPLICANTS FORMALLY ALLEGE THAT ON ONE OR MORE OCCASIONS A MISUSE OF POWERS AFFECTING THEM HAS BEEN COMMITTED AND ALL THE APPLICANTS PRODUCE A RELEVANT STATEMENT OF REASONS LEADING THEM TO BELIEVE THAT THERE HAS BEEN A MISUSE OF POWERS ON ONE OR MORE OCCASIONS . THE PURPOSE OF THE ARGUMENTS UPON WHICH THEY RELY IS TO OBTAIN A DECLARATION THAT, WHEN THE HIGH AUTHORITY ADOPTED THE CONTESTED PROVISIONS, IT EXERCISED THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON IT BY THE TREATY FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN THOSE FOR WHICH THEY WERE CONFERRED, BOTH THROUGH SERIOUS DISREGARD FOR CERTAIN OF THE OBJECTIVES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 3 AND THROUGH THE CLEAR INTENTION OF ATTAINING OBJECTIVES SPECIFICALLY GOVERNED BY ARTICLES 54 AND 59 WHILST AVOIDING THE SPECIAL PROCEDURES PRESCRIBED IN THE SAID ARTICLES . P . 277 PURSUANT TO THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 33 OF THE TREATY UNDERTAKINGS OR THE ASSOCIATIONS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 48 MAY ONLY INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GENERAL DECISIONS WHICH THEY CONSIDER TO INVOLVE A MISUSE OF POWERS AFFECTING THEM . ACCORDINGLY IN THE PRESENT CASE THE COMPLAINTS OF AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE TREATY CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED . APART FROM THE FACT THAT CERTAIN OF THE APPLICANTS ALLEGE THAT THE ADOPTED DECISION AFFECTS THEM INDIVIDUALLY, THEY ALL CONTEST THIS DECISION ON THE SAME POINTS AND RELY ON THE SAME SUBMISSIONS : ACCORDINGLY A JOINT APPLICATION MAY PROPERLY BE SUBMITTED . THE APPLICANTS' APPLICATIONS ARE ADMISSIBLE BUT ONLY IN SO FAR AS THEY RELY UPON THE COMPLAINTS OF MISUSE OF POWERS AFFECTING EITHER THEM OR THEIR MEMBERS . B - SUBSTANCE THE HIGH AUTHORITY HAS SELECTED ARTICLE 53 AS THE LEGAL BASIS OF THE SCHEME FOR THE EQUALIZATION OF FERROUS SCRAP WHICH IT HAS ESTABLISHED . THAT ARTICLE PERMITS IT TO INTERVENE IN CONNEXION WITH THE TASKS ASSIGNED TO IT UNDER THE TREATY, IN PARTICULAR UNDER ARTICLE 3 THEREOF . ARTICLE 53 APPEARS IN CHAPTER II, ENTITLED " FINANCIAL PROVISIONS ", THE OTHER ARTICLES OF WHICH RELATE TO THE USE OF FUNDS WHICH THE HIGH AUTHORITY OBTAINS THROUGH LEVIES ON PRODUCTION OR BY LOANS . IT MAY ACCORDINGLY BE CONSIDERED THAT THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 53 ARE ARRANGEMENTS BASED ON THE TRANSFER OF RESOURCES, IN PARTICULAR ARRANGEMENTS IN THE NATURE OF EQUALIZATION OR COMPENSATION . THIS INTERPRETATION IS CONFIRMED BY THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 62 WHICH PROVIDES THAT CERTAIN EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS " MAY ... BE INSTITUTED AS PROVIDED IN ARTICLE 53 ". THE EQUALIZATION ARRANGEMENTS DO NOT DIRECTLY AFFECT PRICES BUT RATHER THE FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE FORMATION OF PRICES . IN THIS WAY THOSE FACTORS, WITHOUT PREVENTING PRICES FROM BEING FREELY FIXED, MODIFY THE LEVEL AT WHICH THEY ARE FIXED . THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 53 AFFECT BY SUCH ALTERATIONS IN THE LEVEL OF PRICES THE OTHER CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF THE STATE OF THE MARKET AND, IN PARTICULAR, THE SUPPLY OF AND DEMAND FOR THE RELEVANT PRODUCTS . THESE ARRANGEMENTS THUS CONSTITUTE POWERFUL AND EFFECTIVE INTERVENTION PRODURES AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY BUT ARE NEVERTHELESS " INDIRECT " WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 57 OF THE TREATY . IN THIS RESPECT THEY ARE DISTINCT FROM THE DIRECT MEANS OF ACTION THROUGH ESTABLISHMENT OF PRODUCTION QUOTAS ( ARTICLE 58 ) OR THE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES ( ARTICLE 59 ). THE HIGH AUTHORITY, BY USING THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 53, IS IN A POSITION TO EXERCISE A BROAD INFLUENCE ON THE MARKET IN COAL AND STEEL WHILST IT MUST BE BORNE IN MIND THAT ARTICLE 53 RESTRICTS THE APPLICATION OF SUCH ARRANGEMENTS TO THE PROCEDURES " NECESSARY FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THE TASKS SET OUT IN ARTICLE 3 AND COMPATIBLE WITH THIS TREATY, AND IN PARTICULAR WITH ARTICLE 65 ". P . 278 THE EXPRESS REFERENCE MADE TO ARTICLE 3 DOES NOT RELEASE THE HIGH AUTHORITY FROM ITS DUTY TO OBSERVE THE OTHER ARTICLES OF THE TREATY AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLES 2, 4 AND 5 WHICH, TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 3, MUST ALWAYS BE OBSERVED BECAUSE THEY ESTABLISH THE FUNDAMENTAL OBJECTIVES OF THE COMMUNITY . THOSE PROVISIONS ARE BINDING AND MUST BE READ TOGETHER IF THEY ARE TO BE PROPERLY APPLIED . THESE PROVISIONS CAN STAND BY THEMSELVES AND ACCORDINGLY, IN SO FAR AS THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ADOPTED IN ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THE TREATY, THEY ARE DIRECTLY APPLICABLE . IF THEY HAVE BEEN ADOPTED OR ARE GOVERNED BY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY THE TEXTS RELATING TO THE SAME PROVISION MUST BE CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE AND APPLIED TOGETHER . IN PRACTICE IT WILL ALWAYS BE NECESSARY TO RECONCILE TO A CERTAIN DEGREE THE VARIOUS OBJECTIVES OF ARTICLE 3 SINCE IT IS CLEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO ATTAIN THEM ALL FULLY AND SIMULTANEOUSLY . THOSE OBJECTIVES CONSTITUTE GENERAL PRINCIPLES WHICH MUST BE OBSERVED AND HARMONIZED AS FAR AS POSSIBLE . ON THE OTHER HAND SUCH FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS MUST BE INSTITUTED WITHOUT INFRINGING THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 58 AND OF CHAPTER 5 OF TITLE III OF THE TREATY . DECISIONS PRIOR TO DECISION NO 2/57 WERE CONCERNED TO EQUALIZE THE PRICES OF IMPORTED FERROUS SCRAP AND DOMESTIC SCRAP . DECISION NO 2/57 CONTINUES THIS SYSTEM BUT ADJUSTS IT AND SUPPLEMENTS IT WITH NEW PROVISIONS INTENDED TO AFFECT AT THE SAME TIME THE PRICE OF FERROUS SCRAP AND THE TOTAL VOLUME OF PURCHASES IN ORDER TO ENCOURAGE UNDERTAKINGS TO EFFECT ECONOMIES IN FERROUS SCRAP IN THE INTERESTS OF A REGULAR SUPPLY TO THE MARKET . IF THE DEMAND HAD OVER AN EXTENDED PERIOD EXCEEDED THE SUPPLY OF SCRAP IT COULD HAVE LED TO A " SERIOUS SHORTAGE " FOR WHICH THE PROCEDURES LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 59 ARE APPROPRIATE . IF THE HIGH AUTHORITY WHISHED TO AVOID FOLLOWING THOSE PROCEDURES - AND THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 57 REQUIRE IT TO ENDEAVOUR AS FAR AS POSSIBLE TO REFRAIN FROM DOING SO - IT COULD NOT AVOID THE NEED AND THE DUTY TO APPLY THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE 53 ( B ), SUBJECT TO OBSERVANCE OF THE CONDITIONS FOR ITS APPLICATION . 1 . THE SUBMISSION OF MISUSE OF POWERS WITH REGARD TO ARTICLE 53 ( B ) AND ARTICLES 2, 3, 4 AND 5 OF THE TREATY, THAT IS TO SAY, THAT THE OBJECTIVES PURSUED BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY BY MEANS OF FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS UNDER ARTICLE 53 ARE CONTRARY TO THE OBJECTIVES DEFINED BY ARTICLES 3 AND 4 OF THE TREATY ( A ) PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 53 ( B ) OF THE TREATY, THE HIGH AUTHORITY MAY, WITH THE UNANIMOUS ASSENT OF THE COUNCIL, ITSELF MAKE ANY FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS WHICH IT RECOGNIZES TO BE NECESSARY FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THE TASKS SET OUT IN ARTICLE 3 . THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS THUS CONFERRED UPON THE HIGH AUTHORITY IS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SET OUT IN ARTICLES 2 TO 5 CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT, ADMINISTRATION AND GUIDANCE OF THE COMMON MARKET . PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 2 OF THE TREATY THE COMMUNITY HAS AS ITS TASK TO CONTRIBUTE TO ECONOMIC EXPANSION, GROWTH OF EMPLOYMENT AND A RISING STANDARD OF LIVING IN THE MEMBER STATES . THE MEANS PRESCRIBED FOR THE ATTAINMENT OF THOSE OBJECTIVES CONSISTS IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMON MARKET ON THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 4 CONCERNING THE ABOLITION OF OBSTACLES TO TRADE . PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 2 THE COMMUNITY IS OBLIGED PROGRESSIVELY TO BRING ABOUT CONDITIONS WHICH WILL OF THEMSELVES ENSURE THE MOST RATIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTION AT THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE LEVEL OF PRODUCTIVITY WHILE SAFEGUARDING CONTINUITY OF EMPLOYMENT AND TAKING CARE NOT TO PROVOKE FUNDAMENTAL AND PERSISTENT DISTURBANCES IN THE ECONOMIES OF MEMBER STATES . P . 279 TO THOSE ENDS THE COMMUNITY MUST ENSURE ON THE MARKET THE ESTABLISHMENT, MAINTENANCE AND OBSERVANCE OF NORMAL CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION AND, SUBJECT TO OBSERVANCE OF THE PRIORITIES LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 57 OF THE TREATY IN RELATION TO ITS MEANS OF ACTION, IT MUST, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 5, " EXERT DIRECT INFLUENCE UPON PRODUCTION OR UPON THE MARKET ONLY WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES SO REQUIRE ". IN PURSUING THE OBJECTIVES LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 3 OF THE TREATY THE HIGH AUTHORITY MUST PERMANENTLY RECONCILE ANY CONFLICTS BETWEEN THOSE OBJECTIVES CONSIDERED INDIVIDUALLY AND, WHEN SUCH RECONCILIATION PROVES UNATTAINABLE, MUST GRANT SUCH TEMPORARY PRIORITY TO ONE OR OTHER OF THEM AS APPEARS NECESSARY HAVING REGARD TO THE ECONOMIC FACTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE LIGHT OF WHICH, IN CARRYING OUT THE TASKS ENTRUSTED TO IT UNDER ARTICLE 8 OF THE TREATY, IT ADOPTS ITS DECISIONS . PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 57 OF THE TREATY IN THE SPHERE OF PRODUCTION, THE HIGH AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED TO GIVE PREFERENCE TO THE INDIRECT MEANS OF ACTION AT ITS DISPOSAL, IN PARTICULAR TO INTERVENTION IN REGARD TO PRICES . AS HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN STATED, SUCH MEANS OF ACTION MUST BE REGARDED AS INCLUDING THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 53 SINCE THEY INFLUENCE PRICES IN PARTICULAR THROUGH COMPENSATION FOR AND CORRECTION OF FACTORS WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR FORMATION . SINCE THOSE ARRANGEMENTS CONTRIBUTE TO THE FORMATION OF PRICES THEY ALTER THE PRICE-LEVEL ON THE MARKET AND THEREBY INFLUENCE THE EFFECTS WHICH THE PRICE-LEVEL PRODUCES ON THE DIRECTION OF PRODUCTION, AND THUS ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION . SUCH ARRANGEMENTS THUS PROVIDE THE HIGH AUTHORITY WITH THE MEANS TO MODIFY THE EFFECTS OF " NORMAL COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS " WHILST ENSURING, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE TREATY, THE MAINTENANCE AND OBSERVANCE OF THESE CONDITIONS . BY MAKING APPROPRIATE USE OF THIS POWERFUL MEANS OF INTERVENTION THE HIGH AUTHORITY IS LARGELY CAPABLE, PROVIDED THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRE IT, OF BRINGING ABOUT THE REQUIRED RECONCILIATION BETWEEN THE OBJECTIVES LISTED IN ARTICLE 3 OF THE TREATY IN CARRYING OUT THE TASK WITH WHICH IT IS ENTRUSTED UNDER THE TREATY . THE POWERS WHICH HAVE THUS BEEN CONFERRED ON THE HIGH AUTHORITY ARE HOWEVER LIMITED BY THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS SET OUT IN TITLE III OF THE TREATY . IN PARTICULAR THESE POWERS WOULD BE USED FOR AN OBJECTIVE OTHER THAN THEIR LEGAL PURPOSE IF IT APPEARED THAT THE HIGH AUTHORITY HAD APPLIED THEM WITH THE EXCLUSIVE, OR AT ANY RATE THE DECISIVE, PURPOSE OF EVADING A PROCEDURE ESPECIALLY PRESCRIBED BY THE TREATY IN ORDER TO DEAL WITH THE CIRCUMSTANCES WITH WHICH IT IS REQUIRED TO COPE . AT THE TIME WHEN THE CONTESTED DECISIONS WERE ADOPTED THE MARKET IN FERROUS SCRAP WAS WIDELY RECOGNIZED AS BEING CHARACTERIZED BY A SEVERE SHORTAGE OF COMMUNITY SUPPLIES, BY MOUNTING DIFFICULTIES IN IMPORTS AND BY LARGE-SCALE AND RAPID INCREASES IN THE PRICE OF FOREIGN SCRAP . THIS SITUATION ARISING FROM THOSE ECONOMIC FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES CANNOT IN ANY EVENT BE REGARDED AS PRIMA FACIE EXCLUDING INTERVENTION BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY TO COUNTER THE CONSEQUENCES AT VARIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE TREATY WHICH THAT SITUATION MIGHT HAVE INVOLVED . FURTHERMORE THE HIGH AUTHORITY'S APPRAISAL OF THE SITUATION IN THE LIGHT OF WHICH THE CONTESTED PROVISIONS WERE ADOPTED DOES NOT BY ITSELF SHOW THAT THE AUTHORS OF THE SAID MEASURES WERE INSPIRED BY AN UNLAWFUL MOTIVE . P . 280 ACCORDINGLY THE COURT DOES NOT CONSIDER THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE SUCH AS TO RULE OUT, AT THAT TIME, ACTION BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY ON THE MARKET IN FERROUS SCRAP WITH A VIEW TO AFFECTING INDIRECTLY MEANS OF PRODUCTION USING SCRAP . ( B ) THE PURPOSE OF THE PROVISIONS CONTESTED IN THE PRESENT APPLICATION WAS TO MAKE THE CONTRIBUTION FOR THE EQUALIZATION OF THE PRICES OF IMPORTED FERROUS SCRAP PROGRESSIVELY SELECTIVE BY INCREASING THE RATE APPLICABLE TO THE CONSUMPTION OF BOUGHT SCRAP ABOVE A GIVEN REFERENCE LEVEL AND BY GRADUATING THE CHARGES THEREBY IMPOSED IN TERMS OF A SPECIFIC INPUT COEFFICIENT FOR FERROUS SCRAP IN THE INSTALLATIONS AND THE MANUFACTURING PROCESSES REQUIRING SCRAP . FURTHERMORE, THE SAID PROVISIONS CONTAIN A SET OF TRANSITIONAL MEASURES INTENDED TO PERMIT UNDERTAKINGS TO ADAPT THEMSELVES PROGRESSIVELY TO THE CONDITIONS THEREBY CREATED FOR THEM, IN PARTICULAR, THE CHOICE BY EACH UNDERTAKING OF ITS OWN REFERENCE PERIOD, THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS DURING WHICH PAYMENT OF THE CONTRIBUTION AT THE SUPPLEMENTARY RATE IS SUSPENDED, THE GRADUATED NATURE OF THE RATE, THE ALLOCATION OF A REFERENCE CONSUMPTION AND A SPECIFIC INPUT REFERENCE FOR PLANT WHICH BEGAN OPERATIONS DURING THE YEAR FOLLOWING THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE DECISION, TOGETHER WITH THE ALLOCATION OF A SPECIFIC INPUT REFERENCE WITHOUT A TIME-LIMIT FOR ALL PLANT BEGINNING OPERATIONS AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THIS LATTER PERIOD . THROUGH THOSE MEASURES THE HIGH AUTHORITY PROVIDED THE SCHEME FOR THE EQUALIZATION OF THE PRICES OF IMPORTED FERROUS SCRAP, WHICH IT HAD PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED, WITH CONDITIONS INTENDED TO PREVENT A FALL IN THE PRICE OF FERROUS SCRAP RESULTING FROM EQUALIZATION FROM ENCOURAGING PRODUCERS IN THE COMMON MARKET TO INCREASE THEIR CONSUMPTION OF SCRAP . THUS DEFINED THE DECISIVE AIM OF THE CONTESTED PROVISIONS CONSTITUTES LAWFUL INDIRECT ACTION, WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 57, APPLIED TO THE MARKET IN FERROUS SCRAP IN ORDER TO ENSURE, BEARING IN MIND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THEN OBSERVED, REGULAR SUPPLIES TO THE COMMON MARKET . THE SAID AIMS ARE THUS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 3 ( A ) AND THE LATTER PART OF ( D ), THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 2 AND THE THIRD SUBPARAGRAPH OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE TREATY . ( C ) NEVERTHELESS CONSIDERATION MUST BE GIVEN TO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE MEASURES TAKEN ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE RULES IN ARTICLE 3 ( B ), THE BEGINNING OF SUBPARAGRAPH ( D ) AND SUBPARAGRAPH ( G ) AND THE APPLICANT ALLEGES THAT THE HIGH AUTHORITY'S ADOPTION OF THE SAID MEASURES CONSTITUTES SERIOUS DISREGARD OF THESE OBJECTIVES . PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 3 ( B ) OF THE TREATY THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY ARE REQUIRED, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE POWERS, TO ENSURE IN THE COMMON INTEREST THAT ALL COMPARABLY-PLACED CONSUMERS IN THE COMMON MARKET HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO THE SOURCES OF PRODUCTION; THIS PROVISION CONSTITUTES A NECESSARY OBJECTIVE FOR THE ACTION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY IN THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON IT BY THE TREATY . FAILURE TO OBSERVE THE PRINCIPLE OF THE EQUALITY OF TREATMENT OF CONSUMERS IN THE MATTER OF ECONOMIC RULES, AS THAT PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN DESCRIBED ABOVE, MAY CONSTITUTE MISUSE OF POWERS AFFECTING THE PERSONS OR CLASSES OF PERSONS DELIBERATELY SACRIFICED . P . 281 PURSUANT TO A PRINCIPLE GENERALLY ACCEPTED IN THE LEGAL SYSTEMS OF THE MEMBER STATES, EQUALITY OF TREATMENT IN THE MATTER OF ECONOMIC RULES DOES NOT PREVENT DIFFERENT PRICES BEING FIXED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PARTICULAR SITUATION OF CONSUMERS OR OF CATEGORIES OF CONSUMERS PROVIDED THAT THE DIFFERENCES IN TREATMENT CORRESPOND TO A DIFFERENCE IN THE SITUATIONS OF SUCH PERSONS . IF THERE IS NO OBJECTIVELY-ESTABLISHED BASIS DISTINCTIONS IN TREATMENT ARE ARBITRARY, DISCRIMINATORY AND ILLEGAL . IT CANNOT BE ALLEGED THAT ECONOMIC RULES ARE UNFAIR, ON THE PRETEXT THAT THEY INVOLVE DIFFERENT CONSEQUENCES OR DISPARATE DISADVANTAGES FOR THE PERSONS CONCERNED WHEN THIS IS CLEARLY THE RESULT OF THEIR DIFFERENT OPERATING CONDITIONS . THE SUPPLEMENTARY RATE ESTABLISHED UNDER ARTICLE 3 ( 1 ) ( B ) OF THE CONTESTED DECISION APPLIES GENERALLY AND ENTIRELY TO ANY CONSUMPTION OF BOUGHT SCRAP IN EXCESS OF THAT RELATING TO A REFERENCE PERIOD . THE DISCRETION CONFERRED UPON THE UNDERTAKINGS SUBJECT TO THE SCHEME THEMSELVES TO SELECT, WITHIN SPECIALLY PRESCRIBED TEMPORAL LIMITS, THE PERIOD MOST FAVOURABLE TO THEM DOES NOT, HOWEVER, MEAN THAT THE CRITERION USED FOR DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THEM THUS LOSES ITS OBJECTIVE NATURE, WITHOUT WHICH IT WOULD APPEAR ARBITRARY . INDEED THE FACTUAL DIFFERENCES WHICH THIS SITUATION ENTAILS FOR UNDERTAKINGS STEM FROM THEIR DISSIMILAR OPERATING CONDITIONS AND NOT FROM ANY LEGAL INEQUALITY INHERENT IN THE DECISION . THE GRADUATION OF THE CONTESTED SUPPLEMENTARY RATE LAID DOWN BY THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 8 IS BASED EXCLUSIVELY ON THE SUCCESSIVE PERIODS FOR THE APPLICATION OF DECISION NO 2/57 . THE GRADUATION IS THUS GENERAL AND ABSOLUTE, OBJECTIVELY BASED UPON THE WISH PROGRESSIVELY TO PROVIDE ENCOURAGEMENT, BY INFLUENCING PRICES, TO STEEL UNDERTAKINGS CONSUMING FERROUS SCRAP TO ECONOMIZE IN USING IT SO AS TO AVOID ITS UNCONSIDERED EXHAUSTION . THE REFUNDS OF THE PROPORTION OF THE EQUALIZATION CONTRIBUTION CALCULATED AT THE SUPPLEMENTARY RATE, WHICH WERE ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 9 OF THE DISPUTED DECISION, ARE GRANTED ON A PURELY OBJECTIVE BASIS, THE REDUCTION OF THE SPECIFIC INPUT COEFFICIENT OF FERROUS SCRAP FOR EACH TYPE OF PLANT AND MANUFACTURING PROCESS USING THAT MATERIAL . THE VARYING EFFECTS WHICH THE APPLICATION OF THAT ARTICLE PRODUCES ON THE PERSONS CONCERNED, BY REASON OF VARYING OPERATING CONDITIONS AND TECHNICAL PROBLEMS WHICH, FOR CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF PLANT, MAY REDUCE OR EVEN EXCLUDE ENTITLEMENT TO REFUNDS CANNOT RENDER THE RULE INEQUITABLE IN LAW - WHICH IS EXCLUDED BY THE NATURE OF THE CRITERION ADOPTED . ( D ) PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 3 ( D ) AND ( G ) OF THE TREATY THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY, AND PARTICULARLY THE HIGH AUTHORITY IN EXERCISING THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON IT BY ARTICLE 53 ( B ), ARE REQUIRED TO ENSURE THE MAINTENANCE OF CONDITIONS WHICH WILL ENCOURAGE UNDERTAKINGS TO EXPAND AND IMPROVE THEIR PRODUCTION POTENTIAL AND PROMOTE THE ORDERLY EXPANSION AND MODERNIZATION OF PRODUCTION AND THE IMPROVEMENT OF QUALITY . THE HIGH AUTHORITY REFERS TO THOSE LEGAL OBJECTIVES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE DISPUTED DECISION, THE STATED AIM OF WHICH IS TO ENSURE REGULAR SUPPLIES TO THE MARKET IN FERROUS SCRAP AND TO ENCOURAGE UNDERTAKINGS TO SAVE FERROUS SCRAP WITHOUT, HOWEVER, MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT TO INCREASE OUTPUT CAPACITY . P . 282 THE APPLICANTS COMPLAIN THAT THE HIGH AUTHORITY HAS SERIOUSLY DISREGARDED THE OBJECTIVES THUS REFERRED TO BY HAMPERING, THROUGH THE CONTESTED PROVISIONS, THE DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN METHODS OF PRODUCTION . IT MUST BE CONSIDERED WHETHER THE PROVISIONS INDICATE, IN THIS RESPECT, AN UNLAWFUL MOTIVE OR A SERIOUS LACK OF CARE AMOUNTING TO FAILURE TO OBSERVE THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW AND WHETHER IN THIS RESPECT PRIORITY WAS PERHAPS ACCORDED TO CERTAIN LAWFUL AIMS AT THE EXPENSE OF CERTAIN OTHERS TO AN EXTENT WHICH IS UNJUSTIFIED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES . THE ATTAINMENT OF THE OBJECTIVES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 3 ( D ) AND ( G ) OF THE TREATY CANNOT BE PURSUED IN ISOLATION FROM AND WITHOUT REGARD TO THE OTHER OBJECTIVES LAID DOWN IN THE SAID ARTICLE . THE ATTAINMENT OF ORDERLY EXPANSION AND THE MODERNIZATION OF PRODUCTION MAY LAWFULLY BE SOUGHT WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF A GENERAL ACTION ON THE BASIS OF RECONCILING THE OBJECTIVES OF ARTICLE 3, IF NECESSARY GRANTING SUCH PRIORITY TO ONE OR OTHER OF THEM AS APPEARS NECESSARY HAVING REGARD TO THE SITUATION ARISING FROM THE ECONOMIC FACTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES OBSERVED AT THE TIME OF THE INTERVENTION . ( E ) FURTHERMORE, THE OBJECTIVES LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 3 OF THE TREATY MUST BE APPRAISED AS A WHOLE AND PURSUED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE COMMON INTEREST . THE CONCEPT OF THE COMMON INTEREST REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 3, FAR FROM BEING RESTRICTED TO THE SUM OF THE INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS OF COAL AND STEEL UNDERTAKINGS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMUNITY, CONSIDERABLY EXCEEDS THE SCOPE OF SUCH INTERESTS AND IS DEFINED IN RELATION TO THE GENERAL AIMS CLEARLY LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 2 . CONSEQUENTLY PURSUIT OF THE OBJECTIVES PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE 3 DOES NOT RULE OUT SELECTIVE MEASURES BASED IN PARTICULAR UPON THE NATURE OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION TO BE DEVELOPED OR CREATED IF IT APPEARS THAT ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE REASONABLY FORESEEABLE TREND OF MARKET CONDITIONS CALL FOR SUCH MEASURES . THIS IS CERTAINLY SO WHEN THERE ARE DANGERS OF A SERIOUS SHORTAGE OF ONE OF THE BASIC RAW MATERIALS FOR THE STEEL INDUSTRY OR IF IT APPEARS NECESSARY TO ADOPT A POLICY OF USING RESOURCES RATIONALLY IN ORDER TO AVOID THEIR UNCONSIDERED EXHAUSTION . THE DISTINCTIONS WHICH MAY CONSEQUENTLY PROVE NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN CONDITIONS WHICH WILL ENCOURAGE UNDERTAKINGS TO EXPAND AND IMPROVE THEIR PRODUCTION POTENTIAL AND TO PROMOTE ITS REGULAR DEVELOPMENT NEVERTHELESS MUST BE BASED UPON PURELY OBJECTIVE CRITERIA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY LAID DOWN IN THE TREATY . THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONTESTED DECISION ARE BY THEIR NATURE TRANSITIONAL AND ARE INTENDED PROGRESSIVELY TO ENCOURAGE STEEL UNDERTAKINGS TO USE SCRAP AS RATIONALLY AS POSSIBLE . TO ATTAIN THIS THE PROVISIONS ALTER THE COST OF FINANCING THE EQUALIZATION OF THE PRICES OF IMPORTED FERROUS SCRAP BOTH IN TERMS OF THE NATURE OF THE PLANT AND MANUFACTURING PROCESSES AND THE DATE WHEN OPERATIONS WERE COMMENCED, THROUGH THE COMBINED ACTION OF REFERENCE CONSUMPTION AND REFUNDS GRANTED IN RESPECT OF RELATIVE ECONOMIES IN SCRAP . THE GRADUATED INCREASE IN THE COST OF FERROUS SCRAP AND THE SELECTIVE INFLUENCE THEREOF ON THE COST PRICE OF STEEL PRODUCTS VARY IN TERMS OF OBJECTIVELY - DETERMINED QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE CRITERIA . CONSEQUENTLY, THE CONTESTED MEASURES CONSTITUTE, WITH REGARD TO THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION, PROVISIONS ENCOURAGING UNDERTAKINGS TO DEVELOP NEW CAPACITIES CONSIDERED COMPATIBLE WITH REGULAR SUPPLIES OF SCRAP FOR THE STEEL INDUSTRY AND THE ORDERLY EXPANSION OF PRODUCTION . P . 283 THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 6 AND 8 OF THE CONTESTED DECISION THUS CONSTITUTE A BODY OF PROGRESSIVE RULES WITHOUT WHICH THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT ESTABLISHED BY THE SAID DECISION WOULD FORFEIT ITS CHARACTER OF AN INDIRECT MEANS OF ACTION IN RELATION TO PRODUCTION THEREBY RENDERING IT UNLAWFUL WITH RESPECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 5 AND 57 . ( F ) THE " INDIRECT MEANS OF ACTION " IN RELATION TO PRODUCTION PRESCRIBED IN ARTICLE 57 ARE TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM THE " DIRECT INFLUENCE " REFERRED TO IN THE THIRD SUBPARAGRAPH OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 5 NOT BY THE AIMS PURSUED BUT BY THE METHODS APPROPRIATE TO ATTAIN THEM . INDIRECT MEANS OF ACTION, BY AFFECTING, ESPECIALLY AS A RESULT OF THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS UNDER ARTICLE 53, CERTAIN OF THE FACTORS WHICH PLAY A PART IN FORMING PRICES, CREATE CONDITIONS WHICH ENCOURAGE UNDERTAKINGS FREELY AND WILLINGLY TO CHOOSE THE BEHAVIOUR DESIRED BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE TASKS WITH WHICH IT IS CHARGED UNDER THE TREATY . ON THE OTHER HAND DIRECT INFLUENCE, SUCH AS THE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES FOR WHICH PROVISION IS MADE IN ARTICLE 59, IS NOT CONCERNED WITH HOW PRODUCERS WOULD BEHAVE IF THEY ACTED FREELY BUT DIRECTLY PRESCRIBES, ON PAIN OF FINES, AS IS STATED IN ARTICLE 59 ( 7 ), THE BEHAVIOUR WHICH THE HIGH AUTHORITY CONSIDERS NECESSARY WITH REGARD TO THE SITUATION WITH WHICH THE TREATY REQUIRES IT TO COPE . THE TWO PROCEDURES, INDIRECT AND DIRECT, ARE INTENDED TO MODIFY THE STRUCTURES TO WHICH, UNLESS MODIFIED BY INTERVENTION, INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOUR WOULD GIVE RISE . THE PROCEDURES THUS BOTH CONSTITUTE PROCEDURES FOR ECONOMIC INTERVENTION . HOWEVER, THE FORMER CREATE THE RIGHT CONDITIONS TO ENCOURAGE PRODUCERS FREELY TO ADOPT THE BEHAVIOUR WHICH THE COMMON INTEREST, REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 3, REQUIRES OF THEM, WHILST THE LATTER IMPOSE UPON UNDERTAKINGS IN THE SAME COMMON INTEREST BEHAVIOUR OTHER THAN THAT WHICH THEY WOULD BE PROMPTED TO ADOPT BY THE ACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES . THE INDIRECT MEANS OF ACTION ARE IDENTICAL IN THEIR EFFECTS AND IN THE POWER OF INTERVENTION WHICH THEY CONFER BUT MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR ALL THOSE PARTICIPATING IN THE MARKET TO RETAIN THEIR FREEDOM OF DECISION WHILST DIRECT INFLUENCE REQUIRES THE LIMITATION, IF NOT THE ABOLITION, OF SUCH FREEDOM . ALL THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 6 OF DECISION NO 2/57 ARE INTENDED TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR ESTABLISHED SITUATIONS TO CONTINUE AND TO AVOID THE IMMEDIATE AND HARSH RESORT TO MEASURES FOR THE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 59, IN PREFERENCE TO WHICH ARTICLE 57 PRESCRIBES INDIRECT MEANS OF ACTION . THE PROVISIONS IN PARTICULAR WITH REGARD TO " REFERENCE CONSUMPTION OF BOUGHT SCRAP ", " SPECIFIC INPUT REFERENCES ", THE PERIOD OF EXEMPTION FROM CONTRIBUTIONS AT THE SUPPLEMENTARY RATE AND THE GRADUATED NATURE OF THAT RATE ARE STEPS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WISH TO RESPECT THAT PREFERENCE . P . 284 WITH REGARD TO " NEW PLANT " IT IS TRUE THAT, SUBJECT TO THE REFUNDS FOR WHICH IT MAY QUALIFY INASMUCH AS ARTICLE 6, AT THE END, GRANTS A " NOTIONAL SPECIFIC INPUT REFERENCE ", THE PRICE OF FERROUS SCRAP WITH WHICH THEY ARE CHARGED WILL IN PRINCIPLE BE HIGHER . THE SAME IS TRUE OF " SOLID-CHARGED ELECTRIC FURNACES " IN RESPECT OF WHICH IT CAN SCARCELY BE ANTICIPATED THAT TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENTS WILL BRING ABOUT A NOTABLE REDUCTION IN THEIR SPECIFIC INPUT OF FERROUS SCRAP . NEVERTHELESS THOSE FINDINGS DO NOT AFFECT THE LAWFULNESS OF THE SYSTEM . IN FACT THE LACK OF SUPPLIES AND THE INCREASE IN THE PRICE OF FERROUS SCRAP REQUIRED THE HIGH AUTHORITY AT ONE AND THE SAME TIME TO ENCOURAGE UNDERTAKINGS TO REDUCE THEIR CONSUMPTION OF FERROUS SCRAP AND TO PREVENT THE PRICE OF COMMUNITY SCRAP FROM BEING FIXED AT THE LEVEL OF THAT OF IMPORTED SCRAP . IT WAS THUS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE THE EQUALIZATION SCHEME WITH A SUPPLEMENTARY CONTRIBUTION TO COUNTER THE INCENTIVE TO INCREASED CONSUMPTION OF FERROUS SCRAP WHICH MIGHT HAVE RESULTED FROM THE FALL IN THE PRICE BROUGHT ABOUT BY EQUALIZATION . ALTHOUGH THE HIGH AUTHORITY WISHED AT THE SAME TIME TO " PROMOTE A POLICY OF USING NATURAL RESOURCES RATIONALLY AND OF AVOIDING THEIR UNCONSIDERED EXHAUSTION ", AN OBJECTIVE LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 3 ( D ) OF THE TREATY, IT ALSO HAD TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE CONDITIONS APPROPRIATE TO VARIOUS CATEGORIES OF CONSUMERS AND THUS MODIFY THE APPLICATION OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY CONTRIBUTION IMPOSED ON THE LATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VARIATIONS IN THEIR CONSUMPTION OF FERROUS SCRAP . THIS MODIFICATION ENTAILED THE GRADUAL ELIMINATION OF THE EFFECTS OF EQUALIZATION, OR EVEN IN CERTAIN CASES THEIR ABOLITION . THE CONTESTED SCHEME WAS THUS INTENDED ABOVE ALL TO ENSURE A REGULAR SUPPLY TO THE MARKET AND TO PROMOTE A POLICY OF USING RESOURCES RATIONALLY . NEVERTHELESS THERE ARE NO GROUNDS FOR ASSERTING THAT, BY ACCORDING TEMPORARY PRIORITY TO CERTAIN OF THE AIMS SET OUT IN ARTICLE 3, AND CONSEQUENTLY ONLY PARTIALLY RECONCILING ALL OF THE AIMS SET OUT THEREIN, THE HIGH AUTHORITY USED THE POWERS GIVEN IT UNDER THE TREATY FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN THOSE FOR WHICH THEY WERE CONFERRED . SINCE MISUSE OF POWERS HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED THIS COMPLAINT MUST BE REJECTED . 2 . THE COMPLAINT OF MISUSE OF POWERS WITH REGARD TO ARTICLES 53 ( B ), 57, 58 AND 59 AND ANNEX II TO THE TREATY, NAMELY THAT, SINCE THE DEFENDANT HAS EFFECTED THE ALLOCATION OF FERROUS SCRAP IN THE GUISE OF A FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT WHILST REFRAINING FROM OBSERVING THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 58 AND 59 UNDER THE GUARANTEES FIXED IN ANNEX II, IT HAS COMMITTED A MISUSE OF POWERS THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT IN THE CONTESTED PROVISIONS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE, WITH REGARD EITHER TO ITS FORM OR TO ITS EFFECTS, THE SYSTEM OF ALLOCATION DESCRIBED IN ARTICLE 59 AND IN ANNEX II . IN CERTAIN ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES AND SUBJECT TO CERTAIN PROCEDURES, THOSE MEASURES AUTHORIZE THE ALLOCATION IN TONNAGES OF RAW MATERIAL RESOURCES TO THE VARIOUS CATEGORIES OF POSSIBLE CONSUMERS . THE PROCEDURES THUS PROVIDED FOR CONSIST EXCLUSIVELY IN ESTABLISHING CONSUMPTION PRIORITIES AND ALLOCATING RESOURCES . SUCH ACTIVITIES ARE DIRECTLY AND SOLELY OF A QUANTITATIVE NATURE AND ARE THEREBY DISTINCT FROM ALL INDIRECT ACTION ON PRODUCTION BY MEANS OF PRICE WITHOUT RESTRICTION OF THE VOLUME OF PURCHASES . ARTICLE 58 ITSELF, UPON WHICH THE APPLICANT RELIES, CONCERNS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION QUOTAS OR THE REGULATION OF THE LEVEL OF ACTIVITY OF UNDERTAKINGS BY APPROPRIATE LEVIES ON TONNAGES EXCEEDING A REFERENCE LEVEL SET BY A GENERAL DECISION . IT IS FURTHER NECESSARY TO NOTE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MEASURES PRESCRIBED IN CASES OF MANIFEST CRISIS ( ARTICLE 58 ) WHERE THE DOMINANT IDEA CONCERNS DIRECT LEVIES ON TONNAGES, AND THE MEASURES PRESCRIBED IN CASES OF SERIOUS SHORTAGE ( ARTICLE 59 ), WHERE THE CONCEPT OF DIRECT ALLOCATION OF AVAILABLE RESOURCES PREDOMINATES . P . 285 ACCORDINGLY THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT CONTAINED IN THE CONTESTED PROVISIONS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SYSTEM OF ALLOCATION WHICH MAY BE TREATED AS EQUIVALENT IN ITS ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS TO THE ARRANGEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 59 AND ANNEX II . THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY CONTRIBUTION AND THE REFUSAL OF A REFERENCE CONSUMPTION FOR PLANT AND MANUFACTURING PROCESSES PUT INTO OPERATION AFTER 31 JANUARY 1958 DO NOT HAVE SUCH COMPELLING FORCE THAT THEY AMOUNT IN PRACTICE TO A SYSTEM OF ALLOCATION . THEY RATHER CONSTITUTE MEANS OF INTERVENTION INHERENT IN THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT ITSELF WHICH NECESSARILY, BY ITS VERY NATURE, AFFECTS THE FIELD OF COMPETITION AND PRODUCTION . NONE OF THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD CONSTITUTES SUFFICIENT PROOF IN LAW THAT IN THIS RESPECT THE SYSTEM MAY BE TREATED AS EQUIVALENT TO THE ALLOCATION FOR WHICH PROVISION IS MADE IN ARTICLE 59 AND ANNEX II . IN THE CONTESTED MEASURES THE HIGH AUTHORITY WAS CONCERNED TO DEAL WITH A SITUATION MARKED BY EXTREME SCARCITY OF FERROUS SCRAP; IN APPLYING FOR THIS PURPOSE THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON IT UNDER ARTICLE 53 ( B ) OF THE TREATY IT WAS ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 59 WHICH PROVIDE THAT RECOURSE SHALL ONLY BE HAD TO THE SPECIAL PROCEDURE OF QUANTITATIVE ALLOCATION, EVEN IF A CASE OF SERIOUS SHORTAGE HAS BEEN DULY FOUND, IF THE MEANS OF ACTION PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 57, AMONGST WHICH THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 53 MUST BE CLASSIFIED, DO NOT PERMIT SUFFICIENTLY EFFECTIVE ACTION . WHILST THE CONTESTED PROVISIONS ARE INTENDED PROGRESSIVELY TO INCREASE THE COST OF FERROUS SCRAP IN PROPORTION TO THE QUANTITIES CONSUMED AND TO GRADUATE THAT COST SO THAT IT VARIES IN TERMS OF THE TYPE OF PLANT AND MANUFACTURING PROCESSES USING SCRAP, THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE FINANCIAL BURDEN WHICH THIS ENTAILS FOR THE RELEVANT UNDERTAKINGS IS DETERMINED IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE ARRANGEMENT COMPLAINED OF MUST BE CONSIDERED AS EQUIVALENT TO A DIRECT AND SPECIFIC ARRANGEMENT FOR QUANTITATIVE ALLOCATION OR FOR REGULATING THE LEVEL OF THEIR ACTIVITY . FURTHERMORE, ALTHOUGH THE SYSTEM SET UP DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SYSTEM OF ALLOCATION, EVEN ON THE VIEW THAT SUCH A SYSTEM MIGHT DISPLAY CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF INDIRECT ALLOCATION IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO PROVE THAT THE OBJECTIVE OF THE CONTESTED DECISIONS WAS TO ATTAIN THIS ALLOCATION BY MEANS OF ARTICLE 53 ( B ), THROUGH THE EXPEDIENT OF A FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT AND CONTRARY TO THE STATED OBJECTIVE OF EFFECTING ECONOMIES IN FERROUS SCRAP AND ENSURING A REGULAR SUPPLY OF SCRAP TO THE MARKET, OR ELSE, TO PROVE THAT THE HIGH AUTHORITY HAD BEEN MOTIVATED BY A WISH TO EVADE ARTICLE 59 OR THAT, THROUGH A SERIOUS MISCONCEPTION IT HAD FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE CONTESTED ARRANGEMENT AMOUNTED TO AN ARRANGEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 59 . THIS HAS NOT BEEN SUFFICIENTLY PROVED IN LAW . P . 286 3 . THE COMPLAINT OF MISUSE OF POWERS WITH REGARD TO ARTICLES 53 ( B ), 54 AND 57 OF THE TREATY, NAMELY THAT THE HIGH AUTHORITY CANNOT HAVE RECOURSE TO FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS UNDER ARTICLES 53, WHILST DISREGARDING THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 54 ARTICLE 54 OF THE TREATY CONFERS UPON THE HIGH AUTHORITY CERTAIN POWERS IN COORDINATING INVESTMENT PROGRAMMES AND IN PROVIDING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IN CARRYING OUT THESE PROGRAMMES . THOSE POWERS MUST BE EXERCISED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE GENERAL OBJECTIVES LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 46 . WITHIN SUCH LIMITS THE POWERS ARE APPLIED BY THE PUBLICATION OF PROGRAMMES OF GENERAL GUIDANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMMON INTEREST AND BY FORMULATING INDIVIDUAL OPINIONS ON THE PLANS SUBMITTED TO IT BY THE UNDERTAKINGS . THE ABOVE MENTIONED PROVISIONS IN NO WAY IMPEDE THE ADOPTION OF MEASURES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 3, 5, 53 ( B ), 57 AND 59 OF THE TREATY, TAKEN TOGETHER, THE APPLICATION OF WHICH MAY INFLUENCE INVESTMENTS PLANNED BY UNDERTAKINGS . IN PARTICULAR THE RULES CONCERNING PRICES LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 61 OF THE TREATY AND, ABOVE ALL, THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 53 ( B ), WHICH THE HIGH AUTHORITY IS ENTITLED TO USE AS AN INDIRECT MEANS OF ACTION ON PRODUCTION, ENTAIL BY THEIR NATURE RESULTS CAPABLE OF AFFECTING THE PLANS OF PRODUCERS, AND IN PARTICULAR THEIR INVESTMENT PLANS . IT IS CONSEQUENTLY IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPLAIN THAT THE CONTESTED PROVISIONS, WHICH ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 3 AND 53 ( B ) READ TOGETHER, ARE VITIATED BY MISUSE OF POWERS WITH REGARD TO ARTICLE 54 . THE APPLICANTS HAVE COMPLETELY FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE HIGH AUTHORITY'S SOLE, OR AT ANY RATE PRINCIPAL, PURPOSE IN HAVING RECOURSE TO THE CONTESTED PROVISIONS WAS TO EVADE THE SPECIFIC PROCEDURES PRESCRIBED IN THE SAID ARTICLE . CONSEQUENTLY THE COMPLAINT OF MISUSE OF POWERS WITH REGARD TO ARTICLE 54 OF THE TREATY MUST BE DISMISSED . 4 . THE COMPLAINT OF MISUSE OF POWERS WITH REGARD TO ARTICLE 65 OF THE TREATY, NAMELY THAT BY REFUSING TO GRANT A REFERENCE CONSUMPTION FOR PLANT AND MANUFACTURING PROCESSES PUT INTO OPERATION AFTER 31 JANUARY 1958 AND IMPOSING A SUPPLEMENTARY CHARGE ON EXCESS CONSUMPTION, THE HIGH AUTHORITY ADOPTED MEASURES WHICH WERE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN WAS NECESSARY FOR THAT PURPOSE IT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES OBSERVED AT THE TIME OF THE INTERVENTION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY ON THE MARKET IN FERROUS SCRAP JUSTIFIED THE ADOPTION OF THE CONTESTED MEASURES CONCERNING THE FINANCIAL BURDEN OF EQUALIZATION AND THAT, IN PARTICULAR, THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES MIGHT PROPERLY ENTAIL THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A GRADUATED RATE AND THE ALLOCATION OF THE FINANCIAL CHARGE IN TERMS OF TONNAGES CONSUMED, OF THE PERIODS OF CONSUMPTION AND OF THE NATURE OF THE PLANT . ACCORDINGLY THOSE MEASURES ARE NOT MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN IS NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT SO THAT, EVEN IF ARTICLE 65 ( 2 ) ( B ) WERE APPLICABLE TO THEM, THE CONDITIONS WHICH IT REQUIRES WOULD BE FULFILLED . P . 287 THE COMPLAINT BASED ON DISREGARD FOR ARTICLE 65 IS THUS IRRELEVANT . 5 . THE COMPLAINT BASED ON THE INFRINGEMENT OF ARTICLES 2, 3, 4, 5, 53, 54, 58, 59 AND 65 OF THE TREATY AND ANNEX II THERETO SINCE DECISION NO 2/57 IS A GENERAL DECISION IT MAY ONLY BE CONTESTED BY SUBMITTING A COMPLAINT OF MISUSE OF POWERS . THE COMPLAINTS BASED UPON INFRINGEMENT OF THE TREATY MUST BE DISMISSED . THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPLICANT RUHRSTAHL AG OF HATTINGEN THE FOURTH APPLICANT, RUHRSTAHL AG OF HATTINGEN, WITHDREW FROM THE PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 20 FEBRUARY 1958 . THE PRESENT CASE CONCERNS AN APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT . ACCORDINGLY IT IS UNNECESSARY TO OBTAIN THE CONCURRENCE OF THE DEFENDANT . UNDER ARTICLE 60 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO BEAR THE COSTS . IN THE PRESENT CASE THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL WITH REGARD TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE AND THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN PARTLY UNSUCCESSFUL AS REGARDS ADMISSIBILITY . ACCORDINGLY, PURSUANT TO THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THE SAID ARTICLE, THE APPLICANTS MUST THUS BE ORDERED TO BEAR NINE-TENTHS OF THE COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE DEFENDANT TO BEAR ONE-TENTH . THE FOURTH APPLICANT, RUHRSTAHL AG OF HATTINGEN, WHICH WITHDREW FROM THE PROCEEDINGS, MUST, TOGETHER WITH THE OTHER UNDERTAKINGS, BEAR THAT PART OF THE COSTS RELATING TO ITS ACTION . THAT PART IS FIXED AT ONE-HALF OF THE COST OF ONE OF THE FOUR OTHER APPLICANTS . THE COURT HEREBY : DECLARES THAT THE APPLICATION IS ADMISSIBLE BUT UNFOUNDED : CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSES THE APPLICATION FOR THE ANNULMENT FOR THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN ARTICLES 3 ( 1 ) ( B ), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 ( 1 ) ( F ) AND ( G ), 16 ( 1 ) AND 17 OF DECISION NO 2/57 OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY DATED 26 JANUARY 1957; ORDERS THE APPLICANTS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY TO BEAR NINE-TENTHS OF THE COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE DEFENDANT TO BEAR ONE-TENTH THEREOF; TAKES OFFICIAL NOTE OF THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPLICANT, RUHRSTAHL AG OF HATTINGEN, AND ORDERS IT JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY WITH THE FOUR OTHER APPLICANTS TO BEAR ONE-HALF OF THE COSTS BORNE BY ONE OF THE LATTER . © European Communities, 2001 All rights reserved BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1958/C1357.html