1 . CASES 19 AND 21/60 THESE APPLICATIONS ARE AGAINST AN IMPLIED DECISION OF REFUSAL BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY OF REQUESTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF CERTAIN SUMS AS TRANSPORT PARITY . THEIR ADMISSIBILITY IS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 35 OF THE TREATY FOR THE INSTITUTION OF AN ACTION FOR FAILURE TO ACT . P . 294 THE ADMISSIBILITY OF SUCH AN ACTION IS SUBJECT IN THE FIRST PLACE TO A FINDING THAT THE HIGH AUTHORITY HAD, UNDER A PROVISION OF THE TREATY OR RULES LAID DOWN FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION THEREOF, A DUTY TO TAKE A DECISION OR MAKE A RECOMMENDATION . IT IS ESTABLISHED IN THIS CASE THAT NEITHER ANY PROVISION OF THE TREATY NOR ANY DECISION OF GENERAL OR INDIVIDUAL APPLICATION WHICH WOULD CONSTITUTE A RULE LAID DOWN FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION THEREOF PROVIDED FOR OR GOVERNED ANY ALLOWANCE WHATEVER AS TRANSPORT PARITY . NONE OF THE DECISIONS ADOPTED BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY UNDER ARTICLE 53 OF THE TREATY, THE LEGAL BASIS FOR THE INSTITUTION AND THE WORKING OF THE EQUALIZATION SCHEME, CONTAINS OR LAYS DOWN SPECIFIC RULES ON THIS SUBJECT . WITHOUT ITS BEING NECESSARY TO EXAMINE WHETHER THESE DECISIONS FORMALLY PRECLUDE THE PRACTICE REGULARLY FOLLOWED IN RESPECT AND TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE APPLICANTS, THEY COULD NOT IN ANY CASE, IN THE ABSENCE OF A GENERAL FOUNDATION IN LAW, CONSTITUTE RULES LAID DOWN FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TREATY WHICH COULD CREATE FOR THE HIGH AUTHORITY A DUTY TO ACT IN A PARTICULAR MANNER . SINCE THE HIGH AUTHORITY WAS UNDER NO DUTY TO ACT, THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 35 ARE THEREFORE NOT SATISFIED . FURTHERMORE, SINCE THERE WAS NO SUBMISSION ALLEGING MISUSE OF POWERS, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ENQUIRE WHETHER IT WAS OPEN TO THE HIGH AUTHORITY TO TAKE ACTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 35 . SINCE, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CONDITIONS OF ARTICLE 35 OF THE TREATY HAVE NOT BEEN FULFILLED, THE ACTION BROUGHT BY THE APPLICANTS MUST BE DECLARED INADMISSIBLE .
2 . THE APPLICANTS' DAMAGE THE APPLICANTS ASSESS THE DAMAGE FOR WHICH THEY ARE SEEKING COMPENSATION AS THE AMOUNTS OF TRANSPORT PARITY WHICH WERE PROMISED OR PAID TO THEM . THIS ASSESSMENT IS UNACCEPTABLE . THE WRONGFUL ACT GIVING RISE TO THE LIABILITY OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY IS NOT CAUSED BY THE FACT THAT IT DID NOT PAY THAT PARITY BUT BY THE LACK OF ADEQUATE SUPERVISION OF THE ORGANIZATIONS RESPONSIBLE FOR APPLYING EQUALIZATION . IT IS FROM THIS VIEW, THEREFORE, THAT THE EXISTENCE AND AMOUNT OF DAMAGE MUST BE ASSESSED . THE EXISTENCE OF DAMAGE CAN BE ACCEPTED ONLY IF IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE PURCHASE OF SHIPYARD SCRAP WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF THE TRANSPORT PARITY GRANT WAS MORE EXPENSIVE FOR THE APPLICANTS THAN AN OUTRIGHT PURCHASE OF IMPORTED FERROUS SCRAP . THE APPLICANTS HAVE NEITHER SUBMITTED NOR OFFERED EVIDENCE ON THIS POINT AND THEIR APPLICATIONS CANNOT THEREFORE BE UPHELD .