APPLICANT ALSO RELIES ON ARTICLE 2 OF THE GENERAL DECISION NO 14/64 OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY OF 8 JULY 1964 ON BUSINESS BOOKS AND ACCOUNTING DOCUMENTS WHICH UNDERTAKINGS MUST PRODUCE FOR INSPECTION BY OFFICIALS OR AGENTS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY CARRYING OUT CHECKS OR VERIFICATIONS AS REGARDS PRICES . SINCE THIS PROVISION REQUIRES UNDERTAKINGS TO BE ABLE TO PRODUCE THEIR DOCUMENTS FOR THE CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR AND FOR THE FIVE PRECEDING CALENDAR YEARS THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT IT FOLLOWS THAT THE POWERS OF CHECKING AND VERIFICATION CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY DURING THIS SAME PERIOD .
13 THE ABSENCE OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE BARRING BY TIME OF THE POWERS OF ORGANIZATIONS COMPETENT TO DRAW UP ESTIMATES ON THEIR OWN AUTHORITY OF THE QUANTITIES AND PERIODS FOR WHICH UNDERTAKINGS ARE SUBJECT TO THE DUTY TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE EQUALIZATION SCHEME IS EXPLAINED BY THE DESIRE OF THE LEGISLATURE THAT IN THIS RESPECT THE PRINCIPLE OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE SHOULD PREVAIL OVER THAT OF LEGAL CERTAINTY . IN FACT, THE VERY NATURE OF THE OPERATION OF AN EQUALIZATION SCHEME SUCH AS THAT IN QUESTION IMPLIES THAT THE VERIFICATION OF COSTS, ON THE ONE HAND, AND OF THE BASIS OF CONTRIBUTIONS, ON THE OTHER, CAN ONLY BE CARRIED OUT A POSTERIORI AND MUST BE CAPABLE OF AMENDMENT UNTIL THE CLOSURE OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE SCHEME .
14 IT IS ONLY BY GENERAL DECISION NO 19/65 OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY RELATING TO THE DRAWING UP OF FINAL STATEMENTS FOR PRICE EQUALIZATION IN REGARD TO IMPORTED SCRAP AND SCRAP TREATED AS SUCH ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1965, P . 3290 ) THAT A FINAL CLOSURE OF THE ACCOUNTS WAS ENVISAGED, WITH THE RESULT THAT THOSE CONTRIBUTING COULD CONSIDER THAT THE VERIFICATION AND ACCOUNTING OPERATIONS WERE COMING TO AN END . HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT ITSELF ADMITS THAT IT WAS INFORMED OF THE ATTITUDE ADOPTED WITH REGARD TO IT BY THE OFFICERS CONCERNED BEFORE THE PUBLICATION OF THIS DECISION . CONSEQUENTLY, THE SUBMISSION MUST BE DISMISSED .
THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE
15 IN THE ORIGINATING APPLICATION THE APPLICANT HAS ALLEGED THAT THE FIGURES ADOPTED BY THE CONTESTED DECISIONS DO NOT CORRESPOND TO REALITY . IT PROPOSED TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR THE PRESUMPTION ADOPTED IN THE DECISIONS AT ISSUE WHEREBY THE PERIOD FROM 10 MARCH TO 31 DECEMBER 1957 WAS CONSIDERED AS A PERIOD OF FULL PRODUCTION .
16 IT ALLEGES THAT THIS WAS A PERIOD OF TESTING OF THE PLANT AND EXPERIMENTATION, FOR WHICH A HEAVY CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRIC POWER, THE BASIC FACTOR IN THE DETERMINATION BY THE INSTITUTION ON ITS OWN AUTHORITY OF THE BASIS OF CONTRIBUTION, YIELDED ALMOST NO PRODUCTION . IN ITS STATEMENT OF DEFENCE, THE DEFENDANT HAS EXPLAINED THE CALCULATIONS ON WHICH THE CONTESTED DECISION IS BASED AND HAS DECLARED THAT IT ADOPTED IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST THREE MONTHS AT ISSUE CRITERIA SUITED TO THE SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF A RUNNING-IN PERIOD .
17 NEITHER IN ITS REPLY NOR DURING THE ORAL PROCEDURE DID THE APPLICANT CONTEST THE EXPLANATION