AFFORD REDUCTIONS IN PRICE AS COMPARED WITH THE RATES AND CONDITIONS OF GENERAL APPLICATION WHICH ARE LAID DOWN IN CHAPTER 1 OF TARIFFS N.S 7 AND 13 OF THE SOCIETE NATIONALE DES CHEMINS DE FER FRANCAIS AND THEY THEREFORE CONSTITUTE SPECIAL INTERNAL RATES AND CONDITIONS .
THEY WERE INTRODUCED IN ORDER TO COUNTERACT THE STRUCTURAL DIFFICULTIES EXPERIENCED BY THE APPLICANTS WITH REGARD TO THEIR PRODUCTION CONDITIONS IN COMPARISON WITH COMPETING UNDERTAKINGS .
THE REASON FOR THE REDUCTIONS IN PRICE GRANTED BY THOSE MEASURES IS NOT THAT, WITH REGARD TO TRANSPORT, THE APPLICANTS ARE NOT COMPARABLY PLACED IN RELATION TO COMPETING UNDERTAKINGS .
THE APPLICANTS WRONGLY ALLEGE THAT THE TARIFFS IN QUESTION WERE APPLIED IN THE INTERESTS OF THE CARRIERS AS WELL AS IN THAT OF USERS AND THAT THAT FACT PROVES THAT THOSE TARIFFS ARE NOT SPECIAL INTERNAL RATES AND CONDITIONS APPLIED IN THE INTEREST OF ONE OR MORE COAL - OR STEEL-PRODUCING UNDERTAKINGS .
P . 256
COMPETITIVE TARIFFS ENABLE THE CARRIER TO MAINTAIN ITS TRAFFIC IN FACE OF REAL OR POTENTIAL COMPETITION FROM ANOTHER MEANS OF TRANSPORT .
IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE TARIFFS IN QUESTION, AS SPECIAL INTERNAL RATES AND CONDITIONS WERE APPLIED PRIMARILY IN THE INTEREST OF USERS .
THE APPLICANTS HAVE NOT BROUGHT EVIDENCE THAT THOSE TARIFFS WERE INTRODUCED PRIMARILY IN THE INTEREST OF THE CARRIER . THEREFORE THEY ARE SPECIAL INTERNAL RATES AND CONDITIONS REFERRED TO IN THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 70 OF THE TREATY AND SUBJECT TO THE PROHIBITION LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 4 ( B ) AND THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 70 .
7 . THE RATES AND CONDITIONS IN QUESTION WERE IN FORCE WHEN THE HIGH AUTHORITY WAS SET UP AND THEREFORE THEY COME WITHIN THE APPLICATION OF THE SEVENTH PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION . THAT ARTICLE DOES NOT INTRODUCE ANY DEROGATION FROM THE RULES LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 4 ( B ) AND IN THE FIRST AND FOURTH PARAGRAPHS OF ARTICLE 70 BUT MERELY PLACES THE HIGH AUTHORITY UNDER A DUTY, DURING THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, TO ALLOW SUCH TIME FOR THE MODIFICATION OF PROTECTIVE RATES AND CONDITIONS IN FORCE AT THAT DATE AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO AVOID ANY SERIOUS ECONOMIC DISTURBANCE .
THE APPLICANTS MAINTAIN THAT THE PERIOD LAID DOWN IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO OBVIATE SUCH DISTURBANCES .
THAT COMPLAINT MUST BE REJECTED IN LIMINE BECAUSE IT WAS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME AND WITHOUT ANY FURTHER COMMENT IN THE REPLY .
MOREOVER THE APPLICANTS HAVE NOT BROUGHT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THEIR ALLEGATION TO ENABLE THE COURT TO APPRAISE THAT SITUATION .
THE ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION CONCERNING THE INFRINGEMENT OF THE GENERAL OBJECTIVES LAID DOWN IN ARTICLES 2 AND 3 OF THE TREATY
1 . THE APPLICANTS ALLEGE THAT THE CONTESTED DECISION CONTRAVENED THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 2 AND ARTICLE 3 ( C ), ( D ) AND ( G ) OF THE TREATY . IN CASES 27/58 AND 29/58, THEY ALSO ALLEGE THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN INFRINGEMENT OF ARTICLE 3 ( B