REGARD TO THE REQUEST MADE BY THE APPLICANT IN ITS LETTER OF 14 JULY 1954 .
THE EXPRESSION " AS THE CASE MAY BE " IN ARTICLE 35 MUST BE CONSIDERED AS GIVING THE POWER TO RAISE A MATTER WITH THE HIGH AUTHORITY TO THOSE PERSONS SPECIFIED IN THAT ARTICLE WHO HAVE AN INTEREST IN THE DECISION WHICH THE HIGH AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED TO TAKE OR IN THE RECOMMENDATION WHICH IT IS REQUIRED TO MAKE .
THE DECISIONS REQUESTED FROM THE HIGH AUTHORITY BY THE APPLIANT'S LETTER OF 14 JULY 1954 WERE CERTAINLY OF INTEREST TO THE APPLICANT .
ARTICLE 35 MOREOVER ENABLES " UNDERTAKINGS OR ASSOCIATIONS " TO RAISE A MATTER WITH THE HIGH AUTHORITY .
THE ASSOCIATIONS REFERRED TO IN THAT EXPRESSION MAY ONLY BE ASSOCIATIONS OF UNDERTAKINGS WITHIN THE MEANING GIVEN TO THE WORD " UNDERTAKING " BY ARTICLE 80 OF THE TREATY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE WHOLE TREATY .
IF IN FACT THIS WERE NOT SO, AN ASSOCIATION COULD FIND ITSELF IN A POSITION TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS WHERE NONE OF THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF WHICH IT IS FORMED COULD HAVE DONE SO ON ITS OWN .
P . 190
IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INDICATION TO THE CONTRARY, THE TREATY DOES NOT ESTABLISH SUCH DIFFERENCES IN THE TREATMENT OF AN ASSOCIATION AND THE MEMBERS OF WHICH IT IS FORMED .
THE GROUPEMENT DES INDUSTRIES SIDERURGIQUES LUXEMBOURGEOISES, THE APPLICANT, IS CERTAINLY AN ASSOCIATION OF UNDERTAKINGS, BECAUSE IT GROUPS IN A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY UNDERTAKINGS CARRYING OUT PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES IN THE STEEL SECTOR WITHIN ONE OF THE TERRITORIES REFERRED TO IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 79 .
THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 35 GIVES THE STATES, THE COUNCIL OR UNDERTAKINGS AND ASSOCIATIONS THE POWER TO RAISE A MATTER WITH THE HIGH AUTHORITY ONLY WHEREVER THE HIGH AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED BY THE TREATY OR BY RULES LAID DOWN FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION THEREOF TO TAKE A DECISION OR MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AND FAILS TO FULFIL THIS OBLIGATION .
THE APPLICANT ALLEGES THAT ARTICLES 86 AND 88 OF THE TREATY PLACED THE HIGH AUTHORITY UNDER A DUTY TO TAKE A DECISION OR MAKE A RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING THE CAISSE DE COMPENSATION ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE COMMERCIAL DU RAVITAILLEMENT .
UNDER ARTICLE 86 THE MEMBER STATES UNDERTAKE TO REFRAIN FROM ANY MEASURES INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE COMMON MARKET REFERRED TO IN ARTICLES 1 AND 4 .
ARTICLE 88 REQUIRES THE HIGH AUTHORITY, IF IT " CONSIDERS THAT A STATE HAS FAILED TO FULFIL AN OBLIGATION UNDER THIS TREATY ", TO RECORD THIS FAILURE IN A REASONED DECISION .
FOR THAT REASON, THE HIGH AUTHORITY WAS CERTAINLY REQUIRED BY THE TREATY TO TAKE A DECISION IF IT CONSIDERED THE CAISSE DE COMPENSATION TO BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE COMMON MARKET REFERRED TO IN ARTICLES 1 AND 4 .
THEREFORE, IT WAS CERTAINLY FOR THE APPLICANT TO RAISE THE MATTER WITH THE HIGH AUTHORITY IN APPLICATION OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 35 .
III - THE CAPACITY OF THE APPLICANT TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE