61963CJ0001_EN
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Endorsements
Operative part
Parties
IN CASE 1/63
MACCHIORLATI DALMAS & FIGLI, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE IN TURIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, ANTONIO MACCHIORLATI DALMAS, ASSISTED BY ANTONIO ASTOLFI, ADVOCATE OF THE MILAN BAR AND AT THE CORTE DI CASSAZIONE, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF ERNEST ARENDT, 6 RUE WILLY-GOERGEN, APPLICANT,
V
HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, ITALO TELCHINI, ACTING AS AGENT, ASSISTED BY PIERO ZICCARDI, PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MILAN, ADVOCATE AT THE CORTE DI CASSAZIONE, DEFENDANT,
Subject of the case
APPLICATION FOR THE ANNULMENT, REVOCATION OR VARIATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL DECISION OF 14 NOVEMBER 1962 WHEREBY THE HIGH AUTHORITY DEMANDS PAYMENT BY THE APPLICANT OF THE SUM OF 7 000 000 LIRE BY WAY OF SURCHARGES FOR DELAY IN PAYMENT OF THE LEVIES IMPOSED ON ITS PRODUCTION OF STEEL FOR THE YEARS 1953 TO 1960 INCLUSIVE,
Grounds
A - ADMISSIBILITY
NO OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE PARTIES TO THE PROCEDURE IN THIS CASE AND THERE ARE NO GROUNDS FOR THE COURT TO RAISE THE MATTER OF ITS OWN MOTION .
B - SUBSTANCE
I - THE NULLITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL DECISION OF 14 NOVEMBER 1962
IT IS NECESSARY IN THE FIRST PLACE TO EXAMINE THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT BASED ON ARTICLE 33 OF THE ECSC TREATY WHICH IT PUTS FORWARD IN SUPPORT OF ITS PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS WHICH SEEK THE ANNULMENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL DECISION OF 14 NOVEMBER 1962 .
IN THIS RESPECT IT ARGUES FIRST THAT THE CONTESTED DECISION IS NULL AND VOID BECAUSE IT INFRINGES AN ESSENTIAL PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT SINCE THE STATEMENT OF THE REASONS ON WHICH IT IS BASED, PRESCRIBED BY THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 15 OF THE TREATY, IS EITHER LACKING OR INSUFFICIENT .
IT IS AGREED BY BOTH PARTIES THAT THE CONTESTED DECISION DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY EXACT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE CALCULATION OF THE PRINCIPAL SUM OR OF THE SURCHARGES FOR DELAY IN PAYMENT WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE MEASURE TAKEN AGAINST THE APPLICANT .
ACCORDING TO THE LAW AND THE RELEVANT DECISIONS OF THE COURT, THE STATEMENT OF THE REASONS ON WHICH DECISIONS ARE BASED MUST BE SO WORDED THAT IT NOT ONLY ENABLES THE PARTIES CONCERNED TO FIND OUT THE ESSENTIAL FACTORS IN THE HIGH AUTHORITY'S REASONING BUT ALSO ENABLES THE COURT TO CARRY OUT THE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DECISIONS ASSIGNED TO IT BY THE TREATY .
IN THIS CASE THE CONTESTED DECISION DOES NOT CONTAIN ANYTHING WHATSOEVER IN THE NATURE OF A STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT SHOWING HOW THE DEBT, WHICH IS ENFORCEABLE BY VIRTUE OF THE DECISION, IS CALCULATED AND THEREFORE DOES NOT ENABLE THE COURT TO CHECK THE RATE OF INTEREST ACTUALLY APPLIED OR THE NATURE OF SUCH INTEREST .
ONLY AN ACCURATE AND DETAILED STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT DETERMINING AND EXPLAINING THE AMOUNT OF THE SURCHARGES FOR DELAY IN PAYMENT, WHICH THE APPLICANT FIRM WAS LIABLE TO PAY IN RESPECT OF THE LEVIES ASSESSED ON ITS PRODUCTION OF STEEL FOR THE YEARS 1953 TO 1960 INCLUSIVE, COULD ENABLE THE COURT TO REVIEW THE LEGAL JUSTIFICATION OF THIS ENFORCEABLE CLAIM .
ALTHOUGH THE APPLICANT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DISCOVER THE CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF ITS DEBT FROM MEASURES PREVIOUSLY NOTIFIED TO IT, SUCH INFORMATION IS IN NO WAY TO BE OBTAINED FROM THE CONTESTED DECISION ITSELF .
THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 15 OF THE TREATY PROVIDES THAT DECISIONS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY SHALL STATE THE REASONS ON WHICH THEY ARE BASED . A REFERENCE TO PREVIOUS MEASURES CANNOT BE REGARDED AS COMPLIANCE WITH THIS OBLIGATION . MOREOVER THE CONTESTED DECISION CONTAINS NO EXPRESS REFERENCE TO SUCH MEASURES .
IT DOES NOT THEREFORE ENABLE THE COURT TO CHECK THE CALCULATION OF THE AMOUNT OF THE SURCHARGES FOR DELAY IN PAYMENT DUE FROM THE APPLICANT, THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PARTIAL REDUCTION OR THE AMOUNT THEREOF .
THE COMPLAINT OF INFRINGEMENT OF AN ESSENTIAL PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT, IN THIS CASE THE DUTY TO STATE THE REASONS UPON WHICH DECISIONS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY ARE BASED, IS WELL-FOUNDED .
THE CONTESTED DECISION MUST THEREFORE BE ANNULLED .
Decision on costs
THE DEFENDANT HAS FAILED IN ITS CONCLUSIONS AND IT MUST THEREFORE BE ORDERED TO BEAR THE COSTS .
Endorsements
ON THOSE GROUNDS,
UPON READING THE PLEADINGS;
UPON HEARING THE REPORT OF THE JUDGE - RAPPORTEUR;
UPON HEARING THE PARTIES;
UPON HEARING THE OPINION OF THE ADVOCATE - GENERAL;
HAVING REGARD TO ARTICLES 14, 15, 33, 36, 49 AND 50 OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY;
HAVING REGARD TO THE PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY;
HAVING REGARD TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES;
Operative part
THE COURT
HEREBY : 1 . ANNULS THE INDIVIDUAL ENFORCEABLE DECISION OF 14 NOVEMBER 1962 ADDRESSED BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY TO THE APPLICANT;
2 . ORDERS THE HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY TO BEAR THE COSTS .