1 . THE 'DELAY' IN EFFECTING THE FIRST NOTIFICATIONS OF THE RATE APPLICABLE TO THE DIFFERENT ACCOUNTING PERIODS .
2 . SO FAR AS THE VARIOUS LATER CORRECTIONS ARE CONCERNED IT IS ADVISABLE TO BEAR IN MIND THAT, FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE, THE DECISIONS WHEREBY THESE CORRECTIONS WERE PRESCRIBED AND THE DECISIONS OF WHICH THESE CORRECTIONS WERE, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, THE INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE, DO NOT COME WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF REVIEW BY THE COURT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS . THEREFORE THE COURT MUST MERELY CONSIDER WHETHER THESE MODIFICATIONS WERE CAUSED BY CIRCUMSTANCES IN NO WAY CONNECTED WITH THE LEGAL STRUCTURE OF THE EQUALIZATION SCHEME OR BY A DEFICIENT ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENTS OR WORK OF THE ADMINISTRATION . ( A ) THE APPLICANTS PROCEED FROM THE PROPOSITION THAT, HAVING REGARD TO THEIR NUMBER, SCOPE AND THE PERIODS OVER WHICH THEY WERE SPREAD, THE CORRECTIONS, WHICH WERE MADE, AMOUNT IN THEMSELVES TO IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE OF UNJUSTIFIABLY BAD ADMINISTRATION . IN THE FIRST PLACE, HOWEVER, THE HIGH AUTHORITY WAS ENTITLED AND UNDER A DUTY, WHICH WAS PRECISELY IN THE INTERESTS OF THE UNDERTAKINGS SUBJECT TO THE EQUALIZATION SCHEME, TO ENSURE THAT THIS SCHEME FUNCTIONED AT ALL TIMES ON A BASIS OF FAIRNESS, LEGALITY AND ACCURACY AS TO THE FACTS . IT HAD ACCORDINGLY TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE OF LAW OR FACT AND ANY ASSESSMENT WHICH EXPERIENCE PROVED TO HAVE BEEN INACCURATE, INAPPROPRIATE OR INCOMPLETE . IT SHOULD BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THE SCHEME IN QUESTION IS BASED PRIMARILY ON THE PRINCIPLE OF MAINTAINING A BALANCE BETWEEN THE CONTRIBUTIONS LEVIED AND THE AMOUNTS PAID OUT BY WAY OF EQUALIZATION; THAT IF THE HIGH AUTHORITY WAS TO AVOID INFRINGING ARTICLES 50 AND 51 OF THE TREATY AND DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN THE UNDERTAKINGS UNDER ITS CONTROL IT COULD ONLY FINANCE THE EQUALIZATION FUND BY THE LEVY INTRODUCED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 53 AND THIS RULED OUT ANY SYSTEM PROVIDING FOR A FIXED RATE TO BE DETERMINED FROM THE OUTSET AND FOR ANY DEFICIT TO BE COVERED WITH THE HELP OF THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLE 49; THAT THE UNDERTAKINGS SUBJECT TO THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS ARE IN COMPETITION SO THAT THE HIGH AUTHORITY MUST TAKE PARTICULAR CARE TO ENSURE THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY IN THE FIELD OF PUBLIC CHARGES IS ALWAYS MOST SCRUPULOUSLY OBSERVED; THAT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE HIGH AUTHORITY CANNOT BE BLAMED FOR HAVING GIVEN PRECEDENCE ALBEIT AT THE COST OF NUMEROUS AMENDMENTS TO THE PRINCIPLE OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE RATHER THAN TO THAT OF LEGAL CERTAINTY . CONTRARY TO THE VIEW OF THE APPLICANTS THE FACT THAT IT WAS NOT KNOWN WHEN THE LATER ALTERATIONS WOULD BE MADE AND WHAT THEIR SCOPE WOULD BE DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE FINDING THAT THE HIGH AUTHORITY IS LIABLE FOR A BREACH OF THE RULES RELATING TO PUBLICATION SET OUT IN ARTICLE 60, BECAUSE IT MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR UNDERTAKINGS TO COMPLY WITH THESE RULES . IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW THE MERE FACT THAT UNDERTAKINGS DO NOT YET KNOW WITH ANY ACCURACY THE WHOLE OF THEIR FINAL COST PRICE WOULD PREVENT THEM FROM SELLING AT PRICES WHICH THEY HAD FREELY INSERTED IN THEIR PRICE-LISTS AND THIS WOULD BE EVEN LESS LIKELY AS THEY WERE FREE TO ALTER THESE PRICE-LISTS AS FREQUENTLY AS THEY THOUGHT WAS NECESSARY . P . 170 ( B ) ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO CRITICIZE THE HIGH AUTHORITY FOR HAVING RECTIFIED ERRORS COMMITTED IN CALCULATING THE BASIS OF ASSESSMENT TO THE EQUALIZATION CONTRIBUTIONS IT IS HOWEVER NECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THESE ERRORS COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED BY GOOD ADMINISTRATION AS THEY MAY INDICATE THE EXISTENCE OF A WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY OR THE BRUSSELS AGENCIES, WHICH AMOUNTS TO THE SAME THING . UPON READING THE APPLICANTS' PLEADINGS IT APPEARS THAT THEY ATTRIBUTE THE ERRORS OR DEFECTS WHICH THEY REGARD AS CONSTITUTING A WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION PRIMARILY TO TWO FACTS : TO THE DELEGATION OF POWERS TO THE BRUSSELS AGENCIES AND THE WITHDRAWAL OF THIS DELEGATION CARRIED OUT PURSUANT TO THE MERONI JUDGMENTS ( CASES 9 AND 10/56 ), ON THE ONE HAND, AND TO THE FRAUDS WHEREBY THE BASIS UPON WHICH THE EQUALIZATION IS CALCULATED WAS FALSIFIED, ON THE OTHER HAND . THE ARGUMENT BASED ON THE DELEGATION OF POWERS MUST BE DISREGARDED SINCE, AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED ABOVE, THE INTRINSIC DEFECTS OF GENERAL DECISIONS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY CANNOT BE EXAMINED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PRESENT CASES WHICH ARE BASED ON ARTICLE 40 . LIKEWISE, THE ARGUMENT ON THE FRAUDS, WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF OTHER APPLICATIONS WHERE AN INJURY OF A DIFFERENT KIND IS ALLEGED, CANNOT BE CONSIDERED IN THIS CASE, SINCE THESE FRAUDS CERTAINLY HAVE NOT CAUSED THE INJURY ALLEGED IN THESE PROCEEDINGS . IN FACT AT THE TIME WHEN THE LAST CORRECTIONS, TO WHICH THE APPLICANTS HAVE DRAWN ATTENTION, WERE MADE ( DECISION N . 19/60 OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY, JO OF 24.8.1960 ) THE HIGH AUTHORITY STILL DID NOT HAVE IN ITS POSSESSION THE RESULTS OF THE ENQUIRY INTO THE SAID FRAUDS, SO THAT NONE OF THE CORRECTIONS MADE UNTIL THEN CAN BE CONSIDERED AS BEING EVEN IN PART A DIRECT AND ESSENTIAL CONSEQUENCE OF THESE FRAUDS . ON THE OTHER HAND, IN SO FAR AS THE APPLICANTS ARGUE THAT THE FRAUDS STILL PREVENT THE UNDERTAKINGS FROM KNOWING THE FINAL RATE, IT MUST BE SAID THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE AT THE PRESENT TIME TO ESTABLISH WHETHER AND TO WHAT EXTENT LACK OF THIS INFORMATION COULD CAUSE AN INJURY OF THE KIND ALLEGED IN THIS CASE ( THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REASONABLE FORECAST OF FUTURE LEVIES AND THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF THESE LEVIES ). THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 40 PRESUPPOSES THE EXISTENCE OF A SUBSISTING SPECIFIC INJURY . THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS SHOW THAT THE FACTS PUT FORWARD BY THE APPLICANTS AS THE POSSIBLE REASONS FOR THE CORRECTIONS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS A WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION WHICH COULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS . THE COURT DOES NOT FIND THAT THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS WHICH CONSTITUTE A WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION AND MIGHT HAVE AN INFLUENCE ON THE SAID CORRECTIONS . IN PARTICULAR SOME OF THESE CORRECTIONS, OR AT LEAST THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THEY WERE MADE ARE PROBABLY EXPLAINED BY THE TEMPORARY UNCERTAINTY OF THE ADMINISTRATION AS TO THE NEED TO INCLUDE 'GROUP FERROUS SCRAP' IN THE EQUALIZATION ( CF . THE SIXTEENTH RECITAL OF DECISION N . 19/60, JO 1960, P . 1160/60, 1ST COLUMN ). THE HIGH AUTHORITY CANNOT HOWEVER BE CRITICIZED FOR HAVING WAITED FOR THE RESULT OF PENDING ACTIONS BEFORE FINALLY MAKING UP ITS MIND IN THIS CONNEXION . NOR DO THE OTHER RECITALS OF THE SAID DECISION, WHICH ARE DESIGNED TO JUSTIFY SOME OF THE CORRECTIONS OF WHICH THE APPLICANTS COMPLAIN, DISCLOSE ANY FACTS WHICH MIGHT AMOUNT TO PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENT ADMINISTRATION . FINALLY, AS A GENERAL OBSERVATION, IT MUST BE SAID THAT, TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH PREVIOUS ERRORS OR DEFECTS IN THE CALCULATION OF THE ACTUAL BASES OF ASSESSMENT TO THE EQUALIZATION LEVY, FOR EXAMPLE THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF SCRAP SUBJECT TO EQUALIZATION, MAY HAVE CALLED FOR CERTAIN CORRECTIONS, THOSE ERRORS AND DEFECTS DO NOT AMOUNT IPSO FACTO TO A WRONGFUL ACT AND OMISSION . THEY MAY JUST AS WELL BE FOR EXAMPLE THE RESULT OF DIFFICULTY OF SOLUTION OF INTRICATE LEGAL PROBLEMS OR OF THE CARELESSNESS OF THE UNDERTAKINGS THEMSELVES WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO THE HIGH AUTHORITY'S ADMINISTRATION . IN ANY CASE THE APPLICANTS HAVE NOT SPECIFICALLY DEMONSTRATED THAT THERE HAVE BEEN INEXCUSABLE MISTAKES . THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS TAKEN AS A WHOLE, LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE APPLICANTS HAVE NOT PROVED THE EXISTENCE OF A WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION . IV - WHETHER THE ACTIONS ARE TIME-BARRED AND WHETHER THE INJURY HAD THE NATURE OF SPECIAL DAMAGE SINCE THE APPLICATIONS HAVE TO BE DISMISSED AS UNFOUNDED ON THE GROUNDS THAT THERE IS NO WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION AND ALSO THAT NO INJURY HAS BEEN SUFFERED THERE IS NO NEED TO RULE ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE CLAIMS MADE BY THE APPLICANTS ARE IN PART TIME-BARRED . FOR THE LIKE REASONS THERE IS NO NEED IN THESE CASES TO RULE WHETHER UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF THE TREATY THE DAMAGE IN RESPECT OF WHICH REPARATION IS CLAIMED MUST BE IN THE NATURE OF SPECIAL DAMAGE AND WHETHER THIS CONDITION IS SATISFIED .