ISSUE AND, HAVING REGARD TO THE DATE WHEN THESE INVOICES WERE DESTROYED, ALL REFERENCE TO ITALIAN FISCAL LAW IS IRRELEVANT IN THE PRESENT CASE .
IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE IMPOSITION OF THE FINE PROVIDED FOR IN THE DECISIONS OF 18 DECEMBER 1962 FOR INFRINGEMENT OF THE OBLIGATION CONTAINED IN THE DECISIONS OF 23 FEBRUARY 1962 IS JUSTIFIED .
2 . THE APPLICANTS FURTHER MAINTAIN THAT THE CONTESTED DECISIONS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THEM, AS PECUNIARY SANCTIONS WERE NOT IMPOSED ON THE APPLICANT IN CASE 18/62 WHO WAS IN A SIMILAR POSITION .
IT APPEARS HOWEVER FROM THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE IMPOSITION OF PECUNIARY SANCTIONS IS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN THE PRESENT CASE BY REASON OF THE INFRINGEMENT OF THE DECISIONS OF 23 FEBRUARY 1962 . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS OF LITTLE CONSEQUENCE TO DETERMINE WHETHER IN ALLEGEDLY COMPARABLE CASES THE HIGH AUTHORITY SHOULD HAVE IMPOSED THE SAME PECUNIARY SANCTIONS .
THEREFORE THE COMPLAINT OF DISCRIMINATION RAISED MUST BE DISMISSED AS UNFOUNDED .
3 . THE APPLICANTS IN CASES 2/63, 3/63, 5/63 AND 6/63 RAISE THE FURTHER POINT THAT AS THEY WERE NOT ENGAGED IN THE IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY FOR PART OF THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE EQUALIZATION SCHEME WAS IN OPERATION, THE IMPOSITION OF A FINE FOR FAILURE TO PRODUCE ELECTRICITY INVOICES RELATING TO THE WHOLE OF THIS PERIOD IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT IS UNFOUNDED AND CONSTITUTES A MISUSE OF POWERS .
ARTICLE 1 OF THE DECISIONS OF 23 FEBRUARY 1962 PROVIDES THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL PRODUCE THE ELECTRICITY ACCOUNTS 'RELATING TO THE ACTIVITY OF THE UNDERTAKING FOR THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 1954 TO NOVEMBER 1958 INCLUSIVE '.
IT FOLLOWS FROM THESE WORDS THAT THE OBLIGATION THERE STATED APPLIES ONLY TO INVOICES RELATING TO BUSINESS IN THE IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY IN FACT CARRIED ON BY EACH APPLICANT DURING THAT PERIOD .
THE DECISIONS OF 18 DECEMBER 1962, RECITING THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE DECISIONS OF 23 FEBRUARY 1962 AS QUOTED ABOVE THEREFORE LAY DOWN PECUNIARY SANCTIONS ONLY FOR INFRINGEMENT OF THIS OBLIGATION, WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN THE ACTUAL PERIOD DURING WHICH EACH UNDERTAKING WAS ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN THE IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY WHILE THE EQUALIZATION SCHEME WAS OPERATIVE .
THEREFORE THE SUBMISSION RAISED BY THE APPLICANTS IN THE ABOVE-MENTIONED CASES IS UNFOUNDED .
B - REDUCTION OF THE AMOUNT OF THE FINES
IN THEIR ALTERNATIVE CONCLUSIONS THE APPLICANTS REQUEST A REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF THE FINES HAVING REGARD ON THE ONE HAND TO THE FACT THAT THE UNCERTAN AND EQUIVOCAL CONDUCT OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY LED THEM TO COMMIT A JUSTIFIED ERROR IN LAW AND ON THE OTHER HAND TO THE FACT THAT THIS AMOUNT IS OUT OF PROPORTION TO THE ECONOMIC CAPACITY OF EACH UNDERTAKING .
AS REGARDS THE FIRST ARGUMENT, THE PRECEDING CONSIDERATIONS SHOW THAT NO ERROR IN LAW CAN VALIDLY BE INVOKED BY THE APPLICANTS SINCE THE OBLIGATION TO PRODUCE CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE INVOICES AT ISSUE, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ORIGINALS, IS PLAIN FROM THE DECISIONS OF 23 FEBRUARY 1962 AS WELL AS