ON THE ONE HAND OF A CHARGE ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRICE OF IMPORTED FERROUS SCRAP AND THE PRICE INSIDE THE COMMON MARKET AND ON THE OTHER HAND OF THE EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF THIS CHARGE AMONG UNDERTAKINGS CONSUMING SCRAP IN PROPORTION TO THEIR CONSUMPTION, IT WOULD BE WRONG TO ADOPT A RATE OF EXCHANGE FOR THE CALCULATIONS NECESSARY FOR THE FIRST STAGE OF THE OPERATION DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE ADOPTED FOR THE CALCULATIONS REQUIRED FOR THE SECOND STAGE .
IN THIS RESPECT, GENERAL DECISION NO 21/60 DOES NOT THEREFORE ALTER THE AIM AND OPERATION OF THE FUND, BUT APPEARS ON THE CONTRARY TO DEFINE WITH ACCURACY THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE SYSTEM ALREADY ADOPTED IN THE EVENT OF A POSSIBLE CHANGE IN CURRENCY PARITIES OCCURRING DURING THE PERIOD COVERED BY THESE TWO OPERATIONS . THEREFORE THE ARGUMENTS UPON WHICH THE APPLICANT SEEKS TO BASE THE NECESSITY FOR THE UNANIMOUS ASSENT OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL OF MINISTERS CANNOT BE UPHELD . THE ALLEGATION THAT THE STATEMENTS OF THE REASONS UPON WHICH DECISION NO 21/60 AND THE CONTESTED DECISION ARE BASED ARE INADEQUATE MUST ALSO BE REJECTED .
THE METHOD ADOPTED DOES NOT INFRINGE THE PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION . AN EQUAL APPORTIONMENT OF THE CHARGES PRESUPPOSES THE AVOIDANCE OF VARIATIONS IN CURRENCY PARITIES BY THE ADOPTION FOR ALL UNDERTAKINGS OF THE SAME PERIOD OF REFERENCE DURING WHICH THEIR DEBITS AND CREDITS CALCULATED IN UNITS OF ACCOUNT ARE CONVERTED AT THE SAME TIME INTO NATIONAL CURRENCIES . THE ADOPTION OF A SYSTEM BASED ON THE DATE OF PAYMENT OR ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE ENFORCEABLE NATURE OF THE CLAIM WAS ESTABLISHED WOULD LEAD TO THE DANGER THAT THE PARITY APPLICABLE COULD VARY ACCORDING TO THE CONDUCT OF THE UNDERTAKINGS CONCERNED OR OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY AND THAT THERE WOULD BE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST UNDERTAKINGS OF THE SAME COUNTRY, WHICH HAD PAID THEIR CONTRIBUTION EITHER EARLIER OR LATER . THEREFORE THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE DECISIONS IN QUESTION APPEARS TO BE NOT ONLY APPROPRIATE BUT TO CONFORM TO THE EQUALIZATION SCHEME .
NOR IS IT POSSIBLE TO OBJECT THAT GENERAL DECISION NO 21/60 INFRINGES THE PRINCIPLE THAT TAXES AND SIMILAR CHARGES MUST NOT BE RETROACTIVE . THIS COMPLAINT IS BASED PARTLY ON THE FALSE PRESUMPTION THAT, ON THE ONE HAND, UNDER THE PRESENT SYSTEM THE UNIT OF ACCOUNT CONSTITUTES A KIND OF CURRENCY AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, ON THE EQUALLY FALSE PRESUMPTION THAT THE CONVERSION OF THE UNIT OF ACCOUNT INTO NATIONAL CURRENCY ONLY TAKES PLACE AT THE DATE OF PAYMENT . IT IS ALSO ON THE BASIS OF THESE TWO FALSE PRESUMPTIONS THAT THE COMPLAINTS WERE MADE WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION THAT THE HIGH AUTHORITY INTERFERED WITH THE MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY OF MEMBER STATES AND ACTED ULTRA VIRES .
THIS SUBMISSION MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED AS UNFOUNDED .
A - THE SUBMISSIONS REGARDING THE SYSTEM RELATING TO INTEREST
THE APPLICANT STATES THAT THE GENERAL DECISIONS CONTESTED BY THIS APPLICATION ARE ILLEGAL, BECAUSE THEY INTRODUCED A SYSTEM WITH REGARD TO INTEREST WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY