1 . THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 70 PROVIDES THAT " THE SCALES, RATES AND ALL OTHER TARIFF RULES OF EVERY KIND APPLIED TO THE CARRIAGE OF COAL AND STEEL WITHIN EACH MEMBER STATE AND BETWEEN MEMBER STATES SHALL BE PUBLISHED OR BROUGHT TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY " . IT MUST BE OBSERVED THAT THESE PROVISIONS ARE SILENT WITH REGARD TO THE CONDITIONS OF THEIR APPLICATION AND THE IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES WHICH THEY ASSUME AND CERTAINLY THEY DO NOT GIVE THE HIGH AUTHORITY ANY POWER TO TAKE DECISIONS IN THIS RESPECT . MOREOVER, A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 70 AND THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 60 ( 2 ) ( A ) SHOWS THAT IN A SIMILAR MATTER THE TREATY HAS MADE THE OBLIGATION TO PUBLISH PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 60 SUBJECT TO THE POWER OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE FOR ITS APPLICATION BY PROVIDING THAT THIS PUBLICATION MUST TAKE PLACE " TO THE EXTENT AND IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY AFTER CONSULTING THE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE " . THE FACT THAT FOR THE PUBLICATION OF THE PRICE-LISTS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE APPLIED WITHIN THE COMMON MARKET THE TREATY HAS EXPRESSLY GIVEN THE HIGH AUTHORITY A LEGISLATIVE POWER, PROVIDING EVEN FOR REVIEW BY THE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE, SHOWS THE IMPORTANCE WHICH IT ATTRIBUTES IN THIS MATTER TO ITS REGULATION BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY . THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROVISION IN THIS RESPECT IN ARTICLE 70 SHOWS ON THE OTHER HAND THAT IN THE TRANSPORT SECTOR THE WORDING OF THE TREATY DENIES THE HIGH AUTHORITY ANY POWER TO TAKE IMPLEMENTING DECISIONS .
2 . HAVING REGARD TO THE DIFFERENT ATTITUDE ADOPTED BY THE TREATY IN RESPECT OF TWO SIMILAR SITUATIONS IT IS PROPER TO INQUIRE WHETHER A LEGISLATIVE POWER ON THE PART OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY DOES NOT ARISE BY IMPLICATION FROM ( A ) OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY OR ( B ) ITS GENERAL STRUCTURE . WRITERS AND CASE-LAW AGREE IN RECOGNIZING THAT THE RULES ESTABLISHED BY A TREATY IMPLY THE PRINCIPLES WITHOUT WHICH THESE RULES CANNOT EFFECTIVELY OR REASONABLY BE APPLIED . ( A ) IN THE PRESENT CASE THE HIGH AUTHORITY MAINTAINS FIRST THAT SINCE THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 60 ( 2 ) ( A ) REQUIRE THE PUBLICATION OF THE PRICE-LISTS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE OF PRODUCTS COMING WITHIN THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY, THEY REQUIRE BY IMPLICATION THE PUBLICATION OF THE SCALES, RATES AND OTHER TARIFF RULES APPLIED TO THE CARRIAGE OF THE SAME PRODUCTS . ACCORDING TO THE HIGH AUTHORITY IF THE LATTER ARE NOT PUBLISHED THE PUBLICATION OF THE PRICES WOULD LOSE THEIR PURPOSE AND BE OF NO USE TO THOSE CONCERNED . P . 337 IN ORDER FOR THOSE CONCERNED TO BE ABLE TO ALIGN THEIR PRICES AND MAINTAIN HEALTHY COMPETITION THEY CANNOT REMAIN IGNORANT OF THE IMPORTANT FACTOR CONSTITUTED BY THE TRANSPORT RATES IN THE FORMATION OF THEIR QUOTATIONS ON THE COMMON MARKET . ACCORDING TO THIS ARGUMENT, THE COROLLARY OF THE OBLIGATION TO PUBLISH PRICES IS THE PUBLICATION OF TRANSPORT TARIFFS AND THIS OBLIGATION FOLLOWS BY IMPLICATION FROM THE CONCEPTS OF " PRICE-LISTS " AND " CONDITIONS OF SALE " REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 60 . IT IS WRONG BOTH IN LAW AND IN FACT TO SAY THAT THE EXPRESSIONS " PRICE-LISTS " AND " CONDITIONS OF SALE " COVER BOTH THOSE IN RESPECT OF GOODS AND THOSE IN RESPECT OF TRANSPORT . THE SELLER CAN BE REQUIRED TO PUBLISH ONLY HIS OWN PRICES AND NOT THE RATES APPLIED BY A TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING . IN SO FAR AS THE SELLER IS REQUIRED TO PAY THE CARRIER'S CHARGES THEY REPRESENT AN ELEMENT OF THE SELLER'S COST PRICE . THE SELLER IS NOT REQUIRED TO PUBLISH THE DETAILS OF HIS COST PRICE . THE HIGH AUTHORITY'S ARGUMENT THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO PUBLISH THE TRANSPORT RATES IN ORDER TO KNOW THE PRICES IS CONTRADICTED BY ITS OWN ATTITUDE WITH REGARD TO ARTICLE 60 ( 2 ) ( A ). IF THE VIEW WHICH IT IS NOW ADVOCATING WERE CORRECT, THAT IS TO SAY, IF THE SALE PRICES INCLUDED TRANSPORT RATES, ON LAYING DOWN THE RULES FOR THE SCOPE AND FORMS FOR THE PUBLICATION OF THE PRICE-LISTS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE IT COULD HAVE PROVIDED IN THE RELEVANT DECISIONS ( NOS 3/53, 30/53, 31/53 AND 1 TO 3/54 ) FOR THE TRANSPORT COSTS AS A PRICE FACTOR . IT DID NOT, HOWEVER, DO SO . ALTHOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT IN THE " COMMUNICATIONS " WHICH IT SENT OUT AFTER CERTAIN OF THE ABOVEMENTIONED DECISIONS ON THE PUBLICATION OF PRICES THE HIGH AUTHORITY REFERS TO TRANSPORT COSTS, IT DOES SO HOWEVER ONLY TO ALIGN THE STEEL PRICES ON THE DELIVERY PRICE OF ANOTHER UNDERTAKING AND EVEN IN THIS CASE IT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE PRICE ACTUALLY PAID WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY PREVIOUS PUBLICATION BUT IS SUBJECT ONLY TO CHECKING AFTERWARDS . ( B ) FROM ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO INFER A STRUCTURAL AND FUNCTIONAL CORRELATION BETWEEN THE OBLIGATION TO PUBLISH THE PRICES OF PRODUCTS AND THE OBLIGATION TO PUBLISH TRANSPORT COSTS FROM THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF THE TREATY WHICH ALTHOUGH GUARANTEEING ECONOMIC FREEDOM IN THE SPHERE OF COMPETITION IS NEVERTHELESS AIMED AT RESTRAINING ABUSE BY PROHIBITING ANY DISCRIMINATION, THE CHECKING OF WHICH IS FOR THE HIGH AUTHORITY . P . 338 ALTHOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT BY VIRTUE OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE, APPLIED TO TRANSPORT BY ARTICLE 70, CHECKING DISCRIMINATION AND TAKING ACTION AGAINST IT IS FOR THE HIGH AUTHORITY, IT IS NOT HOWEVER POSSIBLE TO INFER FROM THIS PRINCIPLE A POWER FOR THE HIGH AUTHORITY TO TAKE DECISIONS CONCERNED WITH PRIOR CONTROL BY LAYING DOWN THE PUBLICATION OF SCALES OR RATES, SINCE SUCH A POWER IS EXCEPTIONAL AND SUBJECT TO RENUNCIATION BY THE MEMBER STATES WHICH IN THE PRESENT CASE THE TREATY DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR EITHER EXPRESSLY OR BY IMPLICATION . THE HIGH AUTHORITY THUS HAS NO POWER TO IMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS OF THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 70 BY MEANS OF DECISIONS . B . ALTHOUGH THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 70 DOES NOT GIVE THE HIGH AUTHORITY A POWER OF DECISION TO IMPLEMENT ITS PROVISIONS EITHER EXPRESSLY OR BY IMPLICATION IT IS NECESSARY TO INQUIRE WHETHER ARTICLE 88 OF THE TREATY, TO WHICH IT HAS HAD RESOURCE, COULD LEGALLY DO SO . ARTICLE 14 OF THE TREATY PROVIDES " IN ORDER TO CARRY OUT THE TASKS ASSIGNED TO IT THE HIGH AUTHORITY SHALL ... TAKE DECISIONS, MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ...". THE FORMS OF EXERCISE OF ITS EXECUTIVE POWER ARE THUS DEFINED AND CIRCUMSCRIBED BY THIS PROVISION IN THAT THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER TO MAKE REGULATIONS, WHERE THE HIGH AUTHORITY HAS ANY SUCH, IS DONE BY DECISIONS WHICH ARE " BINDING IN THEIR ENTIRETY ", BUT IN CASES WHERE SUCH A POWER TO MAKE REGULATIONS IS NOT CONFERRED UPON IT BUT IS REVERSED TO THE MEMBER STATES THE HIGH AUTHORITY, IF IT WISHES TO REMIND STATES OF THEIR DUTIES, CAN ONLY RESORT TO A RECOMMENDATION AND CANNOT SIMPLY PROCEED TO IMPOSE UPON THEM ITS OWN CHOICE WITH REGARD TO METHODS . NEITHER THE WORDING NOR THE GENERAL STRUCTURE OF ARTICLE 88 ALLOW THE HIGH AUTHORITY TO RELY ON ITS PROVISIONS TO EXERCISE A POWER TO MAKE REGULATIONS SIMILAR TO THE GENERAL POWERS ARISING FROM THE TREATY WHICH HAVE TO BE EXERCISED IN THE FORMS PROVIDED BY ARTICLE 14 . ( A ) ARTICLE 88 GIVES THE HIGH AUTHORITY ONLY A POWER TO RECORD THAT A STATE HAS FAILED TO FULFIL AN OBLIGATION UNDER THE TREATY . THIS OBLIGATION MUST ARISE EITHER FROM AN IMPERATIVE PROVISION OR A DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION PRIOR TO THE APPLICATION OF THIS ARTICLE . THE " REASONED DECISION " REFERRED TO IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 88 MAY SIMPLY RECORD A FAILURE AND MAY NOT HAVE A LEGISLATIVE CONTENT . P . 339 TO MAINTAIN THE CONTRARY WOULD AMOUNT TO RECOGNIZING THAT THE HIGH AUTHORITY HAS AN EXCESSIVE LEGISLATIVE POWER AS AGAINST MEMBER STATES ARISING FROM THE GENERAL LAW . THE REASONS REQUIRED BY THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 88 MUST JUSTIFY THE RECORDING OF THE FAILURE AND THE TIME-LIMIT REFERRED TO THEREIN DEFINES THE PERIOD IN WHICH A PRE-EXISTING OBLIGATION MUST BE FULFILLED AND NOT ONE CREATED BY THE DECISION TAKEN UNDER THIS ARTICLE . IF IT WERE POSSIBLE TO EQUATE THE " DECISION " REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 88 WITH A DECISION WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 14 BY WHICH THE HIGH AUTHORITY CARRIES OUT THE TASKS ASSIGNED TO IT, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN WHY A RULE LAID DOWN UNDER ARTICLE 88 WOULD BE SUBJECT TO AN ACTION IN WHICH THE COURT HAS UNLIMITED JURISDICTION ALLOWING ANY SUBMISSION TO BE MADE BASED NOT ONLY ON LEGALITY BUT ON ANY REASONS JUSTIFYING FAILURE TO ACT, WHEREAS DECISIONS TAKEN IN THE FORM PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLE 14 ARE SUBJECT TO THE RULES AND TIME-LIMITS FOR BRINGING ACTIONS UNDER ARTICLE 33 . ( B ) ARTICLE 88 OPENS MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION AND IS THE ULTIMA RATIO ENABLING THE COMMUNITY INTERESTS ENSHRINED IN THE TREATY TO PREVAIL OVER THE INERTIA AND RESISTANCE OF MEMBER STATES . IT IS A PROCEDURE FAR EXCEEDING THE RULES HERETOFORE RECOGNIZED IN CLASSICAL INTERNATIONAL LAW TO ENSURE THAT OBLIGATIONS OF STATES ARE FULFILLED . HOWEVER, ARTICLE 88 MUST BE STRICTLY INTERPRETED . ALTHOUGH WITH REGARD TO DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY THE GOVERNMENTS MUST FOLLOW THE MEANS OF REDRESS LAID DOWN BY THE TREATY ACCORDING TO THE FORMS AND WITHIN THE TIME-LIMITS PRESCRIBED AND CANNOT SUBSEQUENTLY ALLEGE THAT THESE MEASURES ARE IRREGULAR OR NULL AND VOID WHEN THE HIGH AUTHORITY TAKES STEPS UNDER ARTICLE 88, THE HIGH AUTHORITY FOR ITS PART MUST ADHERE TO THE FORMS AVAILABLE TO IT UNDER ARTICLE 14 OF THE TREATY IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS " LEGISLATIVE " POWER . IT NEVER HAS THE CHOICE BETWEEN THIS " LEGISLATIVE " POWER AND THE PROCEDURE FOR RECORDING AND DECLARING A FAILURE FOR WHICH ARTICLE 88 HAS BEEN ENACTED . IN NO WAY CAN IT USE THIS ARTICLE FOR PURPOSES THE DIRECT ACHIEVEMENT OF WHICH BY MEANS OF DECISION THE TREATY DENIES IT . ( C ) THE HIGH AUTHORITY CANNOT, MOREOVER, CLAIM THAT THE CONTESTED DECISION ONLY RECORDS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ITALIAN STATE UNDER ARTICLE 88, SINCE THE OBLIGATIONS WHICH THE CONTESTED DECISION MAINTAINS HAVE NOT BEEN FULFILLED ARE ALREADY SPECIFIED IN THE LETTER OF 12 AUGUST 1958 ADDRESSED TO THAT STATE . P . 340 THE TITLE OF THE CONTESTED DECISION CONTRADICTS THIS ASSERTION AND CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT ITS OBJECTIVE IS THE ISSUE OF A REGULATION FOR WHICH THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 70 PROVIDES NO BASIS . A COMPARISON BETWEEN ARTICLE 1 AND THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES OF THE CONTESTED DECISION LIKEWISE SHOW THAT THE PRESENT CASE COULD NOT BE ONLY THE RECORDING OF A FAILURE TO FULFIL AN OBLIGATION . THE CONTESTED DECISION COULD NOT REGARD THE OBLIGATIONS FORMULATED IN THE LETTER OF 12 AUGUST 1958 AS DISREGARDED SINCE THEY ARE NOT THE SAME AS THOSE CONTAINED IN THE DECISION ITSELF . THUS THE HIGH AUTHORITY WRONGLY RELIED ON ARTICLE 88 TO LAY DOWN PROVISIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 70, THEREBY NOT ONLY MISCONSTRUING ARTICLE 88 BUT ALSO MISUSING THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR THERE AS A MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION TO ACCOMPLISH A TASK OF DRAWING UP REGULATIONS WHICH IT DID NOT HAVE . C . ALTHOUGH THE WORDING OF ARTICLE 70 AND THE WORDING AND GENERAL STRUCTURE OF ARTICLE 88 GIVE THE HIGH AUTHORITY NO DIRECT POWER TO MAKE REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE PROVISIONS OF THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 70, IT IS NECESSARY TO INQUIRE WHETHER THE CONTESTED DECISION MAY, AS THE HIGH AUTHORITY MAINTAINS, BE REGARDED NOT AS AN INDEPENDENT REGULATION, BUT AS A " REASONED DECISION " RECORDING A FAILURE . ON THIS BASIS IT WAS THE LETTER OF 12 AUGUST 1958 WHICH REQUIRED THE MEMBER STATES IN GENERAL AND THE APPLICANT IN PARTICULAR TO SUBMIT THEIR OBSERVATIONS WITH REGARD TO THE OBLIGATION WHICH THE CONTESTED DECISION RECORDED AS NOT BEING FULFILLED . CONSIDERATION OF THE LETTER SENT ON 12 AUGUST 1958 BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY TO THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT SHOWS THAT THE HIGH AUTHORITY IS LAYING DOWN REQUIREMENTS WITH REGARD TO THE REGULATIONS WHICH HAVE TO BE ADOPTED BY THE GOVERNMENTS IN RESPECT OF ROAD TRANSPORT . THESE REQUIREMENTS WERE INTENDED TO BE BINDING WITH REGARD TO THE OBJECTIVE WHICH THEY LAY DOWN, NAMELY THE OBLIGATION ARISING, ACCORDING TO THE HIGH AUTHORITY, FROM THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 70 TO PUBLISH THE SCALES, RATES AND ALL OTHER TARIFF RULES OF EVERY KIND APPLIED TO ROAD TRANSPORT . IN A LETTER OF 8 JANUARY 1959 THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT DECLARED ITSELF READY TO ANTICIPATE ANY INITIATIVE ON THE PART OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY BY INSTRUCTING THE ITALIAN CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE TO MAKE A LIST OF THE RATES OF THE MAIN ROAD TRANSPORT UNDERTAKINGS AND TO SEND THEM EACH MONTH TO THE HIGH AUTHORITY . P . 341 SINCE THE HIGH AUTHORITY'S LETTER OF 12 AUGUST 1958 CONTAINED AN ADMONITORY REFERENCE TO THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 88 OF THE TREATY AND THE HIGH AUTHORITY DID NOT CONSIDER THAT THE LETTER OF 8 JANUARY 1959 SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 70 OF THE TREATY, IT REACTED TO THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT IN RESPECT OF THE RECOMMENDATION BY TAKING DECISION NO 18/59 OF 18 FEBRUARY 1959 " ON THE PUBLICATION OR NOTIFICATION TO THE HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE SCALES, RATES AND ALL OTHER TARIFF RULES OF EVERY KIND APPLIED TO THE CARRIAGE BY ROAD OF COAL AND STEEL WITHIN THE COMMUNITY FOR HIRE OR REWARD " ON THE BASIS OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 88 . IN THE DECISION IT RECORDS THAT ALL THE MEMBER STATES ARE FAILING TO FULFIL THEIR OBLIGATIONS TOWARDS THE COMMUNITY BY NOT UNCONDITIONALLY ACCEPTING ONE OF THE THREE " POSSIBILITIES " WHICH IT HAD ALLOWED . ( A ) FOR THE FORM OF THIS RECORDING TO BE VALID THE HIGH AUTHORITY OUGHT AS A PRELIMINARY STEP TO HAVE GIVEN THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT ITS " COMMENTS " IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 88 . IT CONSIDERS THAT IT HAS SATISFIED THIS CONDITION BY TREATING THE LETTER FROM THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT OF 8 JANUARY 1959 AS REPRESENTING SUCH " COMMENTS " ON THE GROUND THAT THE RECOMMENDATION OF 12 AUGUST 1958 CONTAINED A REFERENCE AT THE END TO THE SECOND SENTENCE OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 88 OF THE TREATY . THE COURT CANNOT, HOWEVER, REGARD THIS EXCHANGE OF LETTERS AS CONSTITUTING THE FINAL COMMENTS PRIOR TO THE SERIOUS MEASURE OF RECORDING A FAILURE TO FULFIL AGREED OBLIGATIONS ON THE PART OF A STATE, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE POSITION ADOPTED BY THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT DID NOT CONSTITUTE A PEREMPTORY REFUSAL TO ATTAIN THE OBJECTIVE LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 70 REFERRED TO BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY . IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT THAT AN IMPERATIVE PROPOSITION CONTAINS A REFERENCE TO THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 88 FOR IT TO BE SAID THAT ANY CONTRARY OPINION EXPRESSED BY A GOVERNMENT WHICH TAKES A VIEW DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY ON THE PROPER MEANS TO ATTAIN THE OBJECTIVES WHICH THE LATTER IS PURSUING MUST BE IMMEDIATELY REGARDED AS CONSTITUTING THE COMMENTS REFERRED TO IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 88 AND AS EXHAUSTING THAT GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENTS ON THE DETERMINATION OF THE OBLIGATIONS WHICH IT HAS IN FACT OR IS ALLEGED TO HAVE UNDER THE TREATY . THIS APPLIES PARTICULARLY IN THE PRESENT CASE WHERE FUNDAMENTALLY THE HIGH AUTHORITY COULD REFER ONLY TO THE OBJECTIVE ASSIGNED TO THE STATE AND HAD TO LEAVE THE CHOICE OF MEANS TO THE DISCRETION OF THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT . IT WOULD INDEED BE INCONCEIVABLE THAT THE DIFFERENT ATTITUDE OF THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT, WHICH ANSWERED THE " POSSIBILITIES " SUBMITTED BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY WITH A CONCRETE SOLUTION WHICH COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS A REFUSAL IN RESPECT OF THE OBJECTIVE OF THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 70, COULD HAVE BEEN IN THE NATURE OF COMMENTS ON A PRECISE FAILURE, OR ONE AT LEAST SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIED IN LAW . P . 342 SINCE THE HIGH AUTHORITY HAS NOT GIVEN THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT ITS COMMENTS AS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 88, THE APPLICANT RIGHTLY ARGUES THAT THE DECISION IS NULL AND VOID AS BEING DEFECTIVE IN FORM IN SO FAR AS IT PURPORTS TO RECORD A FAILURE BY THE ITALIAN STATE TO FULFIL AN OBLIGATION WHICH IT HAS UNDER THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY . THE CONTESTED DECISION FURTHER INFRINGES THE TREATY BY ITS ERRONEOUS APPLICATION IN LAW OF ARTICLE 88 . THE RECORDING OF THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT STATE TO FULFIL AN OBLIGATION COULD RELATE ONLY TO ITS OBLIGATION TO PURSUE THE OBJECTIVE REFERRED TO IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 70 . THE DECISION HOWEVER INFERS THE ALLEGED FAILURE FROM THE FINDING THAT THE MEASURES TAKEN BY THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT WERE NOT CAPABLE OF ACHIEVING THE OBJECTIVE OF THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 70 ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT THEY DID NOT UNCONDITIONALLY ADOPT ONE OF THE THREE " POSSIBILITIES " REGARDED AS ALONE BEING SUITABLE BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY . IN DOING THIS THE HIGH AUTHORITY ONLY RECORDED THE FAILURE TO EMPLOY THE MEANS WHICH IT SUGGESTED WHEREAS LEGALLY IT SHOULD HAVE RECORDED WHETHER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THERE WAS A FAILURE TO ATTAIN THE PROPOSED OBJECTIVE . THUS IT INFRINGED BOTH ARTICLE 88 AND ARTICLE 70 OF THE TREATY . III . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND WITHOUT ITS BEING NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE OTHER ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT IT IS RIGHT TO ANNUL DECISION NO 18/59 OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY .