COMPARED WITH OTHERS AND WOULD THEREFORE JEOPARDIZE THE OBJECTIVES OF THE SCHEME .
*/ 663J0111 /*.
Parties
IN CASE 37/64
MANNESMANN AG, MANNESMANNUFER 1B, DUESSELDORF, REPRESENTED BY ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ASSISTED BY WERNER VON SIMSON, ADVOCATE AT BERTRANGE ( LUXEMBOURG ), WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT HIS CHAMBERS,
APPLICANT,
V
HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, DR BASTIAAN VAN DER ESCH, ACTING AS AGENT, ASSISTED BY DR HANS PETER IPSEN, PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HAMBURG, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT ITS OFFICES, 2 PLACE DE METZ,
DEFENDANT,
Subject of the case
APPLICATION FOR THE ANNULMENT OF ARTICLE 1 OF THE DECISION OF 8 JULY 1964 RELATING TO THE FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE APPLICANT UNDER THE FERROUS SCRAP EQUALIZATION SCHEME,
Grounds
P.738
ADMISSIBILITY
THE DEFENDANT HAS NOT CALLED IN QUESTION THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION AND NO GROUNDS EXIST FOR THE COURT TO RAISE THE MATTER OF ITS OWN MOTION .
THE APPLICATION IS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE .
THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE
THE ARGUMENTS UPON WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS BASED ITS APPLICATION MAY BE REDUCED TO THREE FUNDAMENTAL PROPOSITIONS : FIRST, THAT THE LIABILITIES OF UNDERTAKINGS BY WAY OF CONTRIBUTIONS ARE TO BE FIXED IN UNITS OF ACCOUNT AND NOT IN NATIONAL CURRENCIES; FURTHER, THAT THERE IS NO LOGICAL CONNEXION BETWEEN THE BASIS USED FOR CALCULATING EQUALIZATION PRICES AND PAYMENTS AND THE BASIS USED FOR CALCULATING EQUALIZATION CONTRIBUTIONS; FINALLY, THAT THE CONTRIBUTIONS ARE THEREFORE TO BE CALCULATED AT THE CURRENCY PARITY IN FORCE EITHER AT THE DATE OF THEIR PAYMENT OR AT THE DATE WHEN THE HIGH AUTHORITY ISSUES THE ENFORCEABLE DECISION .
THE ARGUMENT THAT GENERAL DECISION NO 21/60 DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE HIGH AUTHORITY TO ADOPT THE CONTESTED DECISION IS BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE CONTRIBUTION MUST BE CALCULATED IN PRINCIPLE IN NATIONAL CURRENCY ACCORDING TO THE CURRENCY PARITY IN FORCE AT THE DATE OF PAYMENT OR AT LEAST AT A DATE AFTER THE EQUALIZATION ACCOUNTING PERIOD FOR WHICH THE CONTRIBUTION IN QUESTION IS PAYABLE .
THE APPLICANT CLAIMS FIRST OF ALL IN SUPPORT OF ITS SUBMISSION THAT THE HIGH AUTHORITY HAS INFRINGED AN ESSENTIAL PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT THE FACT THAT THE GENERAL DECISION NO 21/60, WHICH ALTERED THE AIM AND OPERATION OF THE EQUALIZATION SCHEME, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADOPTED WITH THE UNANIMOUS ASSENT OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL OF MINISTERS . FURTHER IT CLAIMS THAT THE REASONS GIVEN FOR BOTH GENERAL DECISION NO 21/60 AND THE CONTESTED DECISION WRONGLY STATED THAT THE SAME CURRENCY PARITIES SHOULD BE ADOPTED TO CALCULATE EQUALIZATION PRICES AND PAYMENTS AS WELL AS EQUALIZATION CONTRIBUTIONS . FINALLY IN SUPPORT OF THE SUBMISSION OF INFRINGEMENT OF THE TREATY THE APPLICANT USES THE SAME ARGUMENTS AS COMPLAINTS OF VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NON - DISCRIMINATION, OF THE PRINCIPLE THAT TAXATION SHOULD NOT BE RETROACTIVE, OF INTERFERENCE IN THE MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY OF MEMBER STATES AND OF LACK OF COMPETENCE .
P.739
IT IS THEREFORE NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER