THEIR SELLING PRICES IN SPITE OF THE UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE FINAL RATE . IN THIS CONNEXION IT MUST BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THE APPLICANTS KNEW THAT THE STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNT WERE ONLY PROVISIONAL AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY ANY ALTERATIONS TO THEM MIGHT TAKE THE FORM OF INCREASES .
THIS WAS BOUND TO CAUSE THEM, AS EXPERIENCED PRODUCERS, ACTING PRUDENTLY WHEN MAKING THEIR ESTIMATES, TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT THERE MIGHT BE SUCH INCREASES, MORE ESPECIALLY AS THE PRODUCER FREQUENTLY ONLY HAS ACCURATE KNOWLEDGE A POSTERIORI OF SOME OF HIS PRODUCTION COSTS COMPONENTS ( FOR EXAMPLE IN THE CASE OF RETROSPECTIVE PAY RISES OR SOCIAL SECURITY CHARGES, OF THE AMOUNT OF TAXES REFERABLE TO AN EARLIER PERIOD, OR OF POSSIBLE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ACTUAL REPLACEMENT COSTS OF EQUIPMENT AND THOSE RESULTING FROM ESTIMATES FOR DEPRECIATION ETC .).
MOREOVER THE TABLES OF STATISTICS PRODUCED TO THE COURT BY THE PARTIES SHOW CLEARLY THAT IN MANY CASES THE SUCCESSIVE ALTERATIONS OF THE RATE APPLICABLE TO A SINGLE PERIOD DID NOT REFLECT A CONSTANT INCREASE BUT WERE CHARACTERIZED EITHER BY ALTERNATING RISES AND FALLS ( FOR EXAMPLE APRIL, SEPTEMBER TO DECEMBER 1955 ) OR EVEN BY PROGRESSIVE REDUCTIONS ( FOR EXAMPLE JULY TO DECEMBER 1956 ). THEREFORE THE APPLICANTS CLAIM THAT THEY WERE EXPOSED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PERIOD WHEN THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS WERE OPERATING TO THE RISK OF UNDERESTIMATING THEIR COST PRICES . ON THE CONTRARY THEY WERE SOMETIMES LED TO OVERESTIMATE THEM SO THAT IT MUST LOGICALLY BE ADMITTED THAT THE DISADVANTAGE POINTED OUT WAS TO SOME EXTENT OFFSET BY A CERTAIN COMPENSATION WHICH WAS ALSO BUILT IN TO THE EQUALIZATION SCHEME . FINALLY, EVEN IN THOSE CASES WHERE THERE WERE FAIRLY LARGE INCREASES IN THE RATE APPLICABLE TO A SINGLE PERIOD THE COURT TAKES THE VIEW THAT THE EFFECT OF THE AMOUNT OF THESE INCREASES ON THE TOTAL PRICE OF SCRAP, THAT IS TO SAY ON THE COST PRICE, IS NOT SUCH THAT THEY WOULD BE PRESUMED TO EXCEED ANY REASONABLE ESTIMATE BY AN EXPERIENCED PRODUCER . IT FOLLOWS FROM ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE APPLICANTS HAVE NOT SHOWN THAT THERE HAS BEEN ANY INJURY GIVING RISE TO A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION .
III - THE WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION
THE COMPLAINTS RAISED BY THE APPLICANTS ARE CONNECTED WITH TWO ASPECTS OF THE ATTITUDE OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY OR OF THE AGENCIES IN BRUSSELS, NAMELY :
P . 168
1 . THE 'DELAY' IN EFFECTING THE FIRST NOTIFICATIONS OF THE RATE APPLICABLE TO THE DIFFERENT ACCOUNTING PERIODS .
2 . THE FACT THAT FREQUENTLY THESE RATES HAVE BEEN ALTERED AT A LATER DATE AND SOMETIMES SUCCESSIVELY WITHOUT THE FINAL RATE HAVING BEEN FIXED TO THIS DAY .
1 . SO FAR AS THE FIRST OBJECTION IS CONCERNED THE DEFENDANT HAS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT THAT THE SYSTEM OF EQUALIZATION IN THE FORM GIVEN TO IT BY THE GENERAL DECISIONS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY OF NECESSITY IMPLIES CALCULATIONS A POSTERIORI . IN FACT THE RATE OF EQUALIZATION COULD ONLY BE FIXED AFTER TAKING