1 . THE APPLICANT CLAIMS, FIRST, THAT THE DECISION IS 'ABSOLUTELY IMPRECISE AND WITHOUT DEFINITE SUBJECT-MATTER', IN THAT NEITHER THE RECITALS IN THE PREAMBLE THERETO NOR THE OPERATIVE PART INDICATE THE INFORMATION IT IS ASKED TO PROVIDE OR EXPLAIN WHY IT IS NECESSARY IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE AND THAT THIS CONSTITUTES AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE TREATY . THE GROUND OF COMPLAINT REFERS IN THIS CASE TO THE FACT THAT THE DECISION ORDERS THE UNDERTAKING TO PROVIDE INFORMATION BUT DOES NOT SET OUT PRECISELY ITS SPECIFIC SUBJECT-MATTER AND CONTENT OR, IN ADDITION, WHY SUCH INFORMATION IS NECESSARY . THE APPLICANT SEEKS TO DRAW A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THESE ELEMENTS AND THE OBJECTIVE PURSUED WHICH, IT MAINTAINS, IS INSUFFICIENTLY CLEARLY STATED IN THE DECISION AND THUS CANNOT CONSTITUTE THE NECESSARY LEGAL BASIS FOR IT .
2 . SECONDLY, MORE GENERALLY, THE APPLICANT PUTS FORWARD THE SAME GROUND OF COMPLAINT IN ORDER TO DEDUCE FROM THE FAILURE TO SATISFY THE CONDITIONS TO WHICH ANY MEASURE OF INVESTIGATION IS SUBJECT UNDER THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 47 OF THE TREATY, THAT IS, A PRELIMINARY DECISION SETTING OUT THE REASONS WHY A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION IS NECESSARY AND SPECIFYING AND DEFINING THE INFORMATION REQUIRED, THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE TREATY . SUCH INFORMATION, IT CLAIMS, MAY ONLY SUBSEQUENTLY BE CHECKED AND, IF NECESSARY, THE PENALTIES REFERRED TO UNDER THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF THE SAME ARTICLE MAY BE IMPOSED IF IT IS REFUSED OR INACCURATE .
3 . THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD IN SUPPORT OF THE COMPLAINT THAT THE STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION IS VITIATED ON GROUNDS OF 'ERROR AND INAPPROPRIATENESS' AND THEREFORE INFRINGES ESSENTIAL PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS THUS AMOUNT TO THE COMPLAINT OF INFRINGEMENT OF THE TREATY WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DISMISSED ABOVE AND THERE IS NO LONGER ANY NEED TO CONSIDER THEM AGAIN IN THIS NEW FORM . C - MISUSE OF POWERS THE APPLICANT WRONGLY MAINTAINS THAT THE HIGH AUTHORITY SOUGHT, BY MEANS OF THE CONTESTED DECISION, TO TRANSFORM THE RIGHT TO OBTAIN INFORMATION AND, IN PARTICULAR TO HAVE CHECKS MADE, INTO A PROCEDURE WHICH WAS INQUISITORIAL IN NATURE, IN ORDER TO EXTEND ITS POWERS BEYOND THOSE LAID DOWN BY THE TREATY AND THAT IN THIS WAY IT PURSUED AN AIM WHICH IT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PURSUE UNDER THE TREATY . THIS ARGUMENT IS NOT PERTINENT, SINCE IT FAILS TO MAKE CLEAR WHAT OBJECTIVES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE TREATY THE HIGH AUTHORITY IS ALLEGEDLY TRYING TO ATTAIN . FURTHERMORE, IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE AND NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN OFFERED . IT MUST THEREFORE BE REJECTED .