P.153
ADMISSIBILITY
IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS THE APPLICANT WITHDREW ALL CONCLUSIONS OTHER THAN THOSE CLAIMING THE ANNULMENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS OF 19 MAY 1965 .
FURTHERMORE, AS A RESULT OF EXPLANATIONS SUPPLIED BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY REGARDING THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SECOND SUBMISSION, THE APPLICANT PUTS FORWARD SOLELY THE INFRINGEMENT OF RULES OF LAW RELATING TO THE APPLICATION OF THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT FOR THE EQUALIZATION OF IMPORTED FERROUS SCRAP AND SCRAP TREATED AS SUCH .
THE DEFENDANT HAS NOT CONTESTED THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION AND NO GROUNDS EXIST FOR THE COURT TO RAISE THE MATTER OF ITS OWN MOTION .
THE APPLICATION IS THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE .
P.154
SUBSTANCE
THE APPLICANT MAINTAINS THAT THE HIGH AUTHORITY, HAVING REGARDED AS BOUGHT SCRAP STOCKS OF FERROUS SCRAP USED BY THE SOLBIATE COMPANY AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF ITS ACTIVITIES, FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE UPON WHICH THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT FOR THE EQUALIZATION OF FERROUS SCRAP IS BASED, IN PARTICULAR ARTICLES 3 TO 6 OF DECISION NO 2/57 .
ACCORDING TO THIS PRINCIPLE, FOR THE PURPOSES OF ASSESSING BOUGHT SCRAP, THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT RELATES ONLY TO TRANSFERS OF OWNERSHIP IN CONSIDERATION OF A PRICE; THIS IS PARTICULARLY SO IN THOSE CASES IN WHICH THE COMPANY FORMERLY EXERCISING OWNERSHIP CEASES TO EXIST AND IS SUCCEEDED BY A NEW COMPANY FORMED FROM THE SAME FAMILY GROUP .
IN THIS INSTANCE, IT IS CLAIMED, AS THE APPLICANT AND THE METALSIDER UNDERTAKING, THE FORMER OWNER OF THE FERROUS SCRAP IN QUESTION, ARE BOTH CONSTITUTED BY THE SAME FAMILY GROUP, IT MUST BE ACCEPTED THAT AT THE BEGINNING THE GROUP UTILIZED THE STOCKS WHICH IT HAD AVAILABLE AT METALSIDER, WITH THE RESULT THAT NO TRANSFER OF FERROUS SCRAP WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT CAN BE SAID TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE BETWEEN THE TWO UNDERTAKINGS .
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL DECISIONS ESTABLISHING THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT FOR THE EQUALIZATION OF IMPORTED FERROUS SCRAP, SCRAP PURCHASED AND CONSUMED BY UNDERTAKINGS CARRYING OUT ACTIVITIES IN THE FIELD OF IRON AND STEEL IS SUBJECT TO EQUALIZATION .
ALTHOUGH GENERAL DECISION NO 22/54 REFERS TO THE CONCEPT OF PURCHASE, THIS REFERENCE IS EXPLAINED IN PARTICULAR BY THE NEED TO DISTINGUISH ASSESSABLE SCRAP FROM THAT EXEMPT FROM THE EQUALIZATION LEVY, THAT IS, FROM SCRAP WHICH HAS NOT UNDERGONE ANY CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP ( USING THIS TERM IN A STRICTLY LEGAL SENSE ) BETWEEN ITS PRODUCTION AND ITS UTILIZATION . FURTHERMORE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE EQUALIZATION SCHEME, THE CONCEPT OF AN UNDERTAKING MAY BE IDENTIFIED WITH THAT OF A NATURAL OR LEGAL PERSON .
IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE FERROUS SCRAP IN DISPUTE WAS NOT PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT WHICH IS A COMPANY ENTIRELY DISTINCT FROM THE METALSIDER UNDERTAKING .
THIS BEING SO, IT MUST BE REGARDED AS BOUGHT SCRAP AND AS SUCH SUBJECT TO THE EQUALIZATION LEVY .
THE APPLICANT FURTHER MAINTAINS THAT THE FERROUS SCRAP IN QUESTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXEMPT FROM EQUALIZATION ON THE GROUND THAT IT CONSTITUTES STOCKS, WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 4 OF GENERAL DECISION NO 2/57 .
P.155
THE EFFECT OF THIS ARTICLE IS NOT TO EXEMPT SCRAP PURCHASED AND CONSUMED BY USERS FROM PAYMENT OF THE EQUALIZATION CONTRIBUTIONS .
ITS PURPOSE IS MERELY TO AVOID A SECOND ASSESSMENT BEING MADE AT THE MOMENT THEY ARE PUT IN THE FURNACE OF THOSE QUANTITIES OF FERROUS SCRAP WHICH ARE NOT USED FROM DAY TO DAY BUT ARE ADDED TO STOCK .
IN THIS INSTANCE, THE FERROUS SCRAP IN DISPUTE WAS PURCHASED AND CONSUMED BY THE APPLICANT .
MOREOVER, THE APPLICANT DESCRIBED THIS SCRAP AS STOCKS AS AT THE FIRST DAY OF THE MONTH, WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY EVIDENCE FOR THIS DESCRIPTION .
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS FINALLY THAT THE EXEMPTION GRANTED TO UNDERTAKINGS IN EXISTENCE ON THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE FINANCIAL SCHEME AS REGARDS THE CONSUMPTION OF FERROUS SCRAP DRAWN FROM STOCKS AVAILABLE AT THAT DATE SHOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO UNDERTAKINGS WHICH, LIKE THE APPLICANT, COMMENCED THEIR ACTIVITIES AFTER THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THIS SCHEME, AS REGARDS THE CONSUMPTION OF STOCKS AVAILABLE THE FIRST TIME THE FURNACE WAS CHARGED; BY SUBJECTING THE FERROUS SCRAP IN QUESTION TO THE EQUALIZATION LEVY THE HIGH AUTHORITY INFRINGED THE PRINCIPLE OF NON - DISCRIMINATION, TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE APPLICANT .
UNDERTAKINGS IN EXISTENCE BEFORE THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE FINANCIAL SCHEME PURCHASED FERROUS SCRAP AT THE MARKET PRICE, WHICH WAS UNAFFECTED BY EQUALIZATION, WHEREAS THOSE UNDERTAKINGS WHICH PURCHASED THE SAME PRODUCT AFTER THAT DATE BENEFITED FROM THE EFFECT OF THIS SCHEME UPON MARKET PRICES .
THE APPLICANT HAS OFFERED NO SPECIFIC EVIDENCE THAT THE FERROUS SCRAP IN DISPUTE WAS TAKEN FROM STOCKS HELD BY THE METALSIDER UNDERTAKING PRIOR TO THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE FINANCIAL SCHEME .
IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AS THE FACTUAL SITUATIONS OF THE APPLICANT UNDERTAKING AND OF OTHER UNDERTAKINGS WHICH HAVE BENEFITED FROM THIS EXEMPTION ARE NOT COMPARABLE, THE COMPLAINT OF DISCRIMINATION MUST BE DISMISSED .
FOR ALL THESE REASONS THE APPLICATION MUST BE REGARDED AS UNFOUNDED .
UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 69(2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
IN THIS INSTANCE, THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED IN ITS APPLICATION .
IT MUST THEREFORE BE ORDERED TO BEAR THE COSTS .
THE COURT
HEREBY :
1 . DISMISSES APPLICATION 50/65 AS UNFOUNDED;
2 . ORDERS THE APPLICANT TO PAY THE COSTS .
