WITHOUT FURTHER CHECKING, IT CANNOT BE INFERRED FROM THIS THAT THE OFFICIAL WHOM THE MINISTRY HAD CHARGED WITH ISSUING THE SAID CERTIFICATES ACTED ON BEHALF OF OR IN THE NAME OF THE COMMUNITY . THE WRONGFUL ACT COMMITTED BY THIS OFFICIAL CANNOT THEREFORE BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT . NO OTHER PERSONAL WRONG COMMITTED BY A SERVANT OF THE DEFENDANT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED .
( B ) IT IS ALSO NECESSARY HOWEVER TO CONSIDER WHETHER THERE WAS A WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANT WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 40 OF THE ECSC TREATY, BECAUSE OF ITS FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BETTER ORGANIZED SYSTEM FOR ISSUING THE CERTIFICATES OF ORIGIN FOR FERROUS SCRAP QUALIFYING FOR EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS, AND IN PARTICULAR BECAUSE OF ITS FAILURE TO PROVIDE FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SAID CERTIFICATES .
AT FIRST SIGHT, THE FACT THAT IT WAS POSSIBLE FOR THE ABUSES COMPLAINED OF TO CONTINUE FOR SEVERAL YEARS APPEARS TO INDICATE THAT THE ORGANIZATION WAS DEFECTIVE AND INSUFFICIENT . HOWEVER, THAT CONCLUSION IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN THIS CASE . IN FACT, IN LEAVING TO THE COMPETENT NATIONAL AUTHORITY THE TASK OF ISSUING THE NECESSARY CERTIFICATES, THE DEFENDANT PURSUED THE COURSE WHICH APPEARED THE MOST APPROPRIATE AND THE MOST LIKELY TO AFFORD THE BEST GUARANTEE AGAINST ANY ABUSE . SINCE THE CERTIFICATES FORMED AT THE SAME TIME THE LEGAL BASIS, ACCORDING TO NETHERLANDS LAW, FOR THE RE-EXPORT OF THE FERROUS SCRAP, IT WAS NATURAL TO ENTRUST THEIR ISSUE TO THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES WHO, MOREOVER, WERE THE BEST QUALIFIED TO CARRY OUT THE NECESSARY CHECKS .
THE ISSUE OF THE CERTIFICATES HAD NOT BEEN LEFT TO A SUBORDINATE AUTHORITY BUT TO A MINISTRY . THE NETHERLANDS REGULATIONS PROVIDED FOR AN EXTREMELY DETAILED PROCEDURE PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CERTIFICATES FOR CHECKING THE ORIGIN OF THE FERROUS SCRAP IN QUESTION; IT WAS IN FACT IMPOSSIBLE TO FORESEE THAT ACTS OF FRAUD COULD OCCUR IF THIS SYSTEM WERE APPLIED .
P . 252
IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DEFENDANT CANNOT BE BLAMED FOR HAVING ADOPTED THIS SYSTEM AND THE FACT OF ITS HAVING SO CANNOT IN ANY CASE BE DESCRIBED AS A WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION .
THIS ALSO HOLDS GOOD WITH REGARD TO LACK OF SUPERVISION . IN FACT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXCESSIVE TO CHECK CERTIFICATES COMING FROM A MINISTRY AND PURPORTING TO BE OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS, AT ANY RATE SO LONG AS THERE WAS NO INDICATION OF ABUSE WHICH COULD RAISE DOUBTS AS TO THEIR AUTHENTICITY .
THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPLICANT THAT THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT TO THE QUESTIONS PUT BY MR VAN DER GOES VAN NATERS AND MR NEDERHORST AND THE LETTER OF 24 FEBRUARY 1958 ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE EQUALIZATION FUND BY THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY, MR SPIERENBURG, CONSTITUTED AN ADMISSION OF A WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION SHOULD BE REJECTED . ALTHOUGH IN FACT THESE STATEMENTS DID ENQUIRE HOW AN