61959CJ0023_EN
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Endorsements
Operative part
Parties
IN CASE 23/59
ACCIAIERIA FERRIERA DI ROMA SPA ( FERAM ), A LIMITED COMPANY UNDER ITALIAN LAW, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE IN ROME, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ALDO ALLIATA, ASSISTED BY ARTURO COTTRAU, ADVOCATE OF THE TURIN BAR AND OF THE CORTE DI CASSAZIONE, ROME, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF GEORGES MARGUE, 6 RUE ALPHONSE-MUENCHEN, APPLICANT,
V
HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, PROFESSOR GIULIO PASETTI, ACTING AS AGENT, ASSISTED BY PROFESSOR TRABUCCHI OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PADUA, ADVOCATE OF THE CORTE DI CASSAZIONE, ROME, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT 2 PLACE DE METZ, DEFENDANT,
Subject of the case
APPLICATION FOR REPARATION FOR INJURY CAUSED BY AN ALLEGED WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY;
Grounds
P . 250
I - EXISTENCE OF INJURY
EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF CERTIFICATES FRAUDULENTLY CERTIFYING THAT A CONSIDERABLE QUANTITY OF FERROUS SCRAP WAS " FROM SHIP-BREAKERS'YARDS " WHEREAS, IN FACT, IT ORIGINATED IN THE COMMUNITY AND DID NOT THEREFORE QUALIFY FOR EQUALIZATION . THESE PAYMENTS ARE LIABLE TO RESULT IN AN INCREASE IN THE CONTRIBUTIONS TO BE PAID BY ALL FERROUS SCRAP PRODUCERS INCLUDING, THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT .
IT IS STILL UNCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT THIS INCREASE IN THE EQUALIZATION RATES CAUSES FERROUS SCRAP CONSUMERS AND, PARTICULARLY, THE APPLICANT, ACTUAL, SIGNIFICANT AND DEFINITE INJURY, SINCE THE HIGH AUTHORITY HAS INSTITUTED PROCEEDINGS FOR RECOVERY OF THE SUMS IMPROPERLY PAID AND, MOREOVER, IT IS STILL POSSIBLE FOR SUCH PROCEEDINGS TO BE TAKEN AGAINST THOSE RESPONSIBLE .
THERE IS, HOWEVER, NO NEED TO SETTLE THIS QUESTION BECAUSE, FOR THE REASONS SET OUT BELOW, EVEN THE EXISTENCE OF INJURY PLACES NO OBLIGATION ON THE DEFENDANT TO MAKE GOOD THAT INJURY .
II - OBLIGATION TO MAKE GOOD THE INJURY
1 . LIABILITY OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY ON THE BASIS OF A GUARANTEE GIVEN BY IT
THE APPLICANT INFERS THE LIABILITY OF THE DEFENDANT FROM THE FACT THAT THE LATTER, IN ITS DECISIONS ESTABLISHING THE EQUALIZATION SCHEME, FORMALLY UNDERTOOK TO ENSURE A FAULTLESS SERVICE; THIS COMMITMENT EXTENDED ALSO TO IRON AND STEEL UNDERTAKINGS OF THE COMMUNITY . THIS EMERGES FROM THE EIGHTH RECITAL OF THE PREAMBLE TO DECISION NO 14/55 IN WHICH THE HIGH AUTHORITY DECLARED THAT IT " IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REGULAR FUNCTIONING OF THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS AND HENCE MUST ALWAYS BE IN A POSITION TO INTERVENE EFFECTIVELY ".
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS AND THE PRINCIPLE ENUNCIATED IN THE RECITAL TO THE ABOVEMENTIONED GENERAL DECISION, OF THE LIABILITY ASSUMED BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY FOR THE REGULAR FUNCTIONING OF THIS SCHEME, BELONG TO THE POLITICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE SPHERE AND CANNOT THUS CONSTITUTE AN OBLIGATION TO THE UNDERTAKINGS UNDER ITS AUTHORITY OR A GUARANTEE GIVING RISE TO OBJECTIVE, CONTRACTUAL OR LEGAL LIABILITY ON THE PART OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY, EVEN WHEN NO WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION CAN BE IMPUTED TO IT .
THIS SUBMISSION MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED .
P . 251
2 . LIABILITY FOR A WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION
THE APPLICATION IS MOREOVER PRINCIPALLY BASED ON ARTICLE 40 OF THE ECSC TREATY WHICH ALLOWS THE INJURED PARTY TO BRING AN ACTION TO OBTAIN PECUNIARY REPARATION FROM THE COMMUNITY TO MAKE GOOD ANY INJURY CAUSED IN CARRYING OUT THE SAID TREATY BY A WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE COMMUNITY IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS FUNCTIONS .
( A ) THE OFFICIAL OF THE NETHERLANDS MINISTRY FOR ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, WHO FRAUDULENTLY ISSUED THE CERTIFICATES IN QUESTION, WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY AND DID NOT RECEIVE ORDERS FROM IT, BUT ACTED IN HIS CAPACITY AS A NATIONAL OFFICIAL .
IF, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SYSTEM APPLIED BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY, CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE NETHERLANDS MINISTRY WERE RECOGNIZED AS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WITHOUT FURTHER CHECKING, IT CANNOT BE INFERRED FROM THIS THAT THE OFFICIAL WHOM THE MINISTRY HAD CHARGED WITH ISSUING THE SAID CERTIFICATES ACTED ON BEHALF OF OR IN THE NAME OF THE COMMUNITY . THE WRONGFUL ACT COMMITTED BY THIS OFFICIAL CANNOT THEREFORE BE IMPUTED TO THE DEFENDANT . NO OTHER PERSONAL WRONG COMMITTED BY A SERVANT OF THE DEFENDANT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED .
( B ) IT IS ALSO NECESSARY HOWEVER TO CONSIDER WHETHER THERE WAS A WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANT WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 40 OF THE ECSC TREATY, BECAUSE OF ITS FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BETTER ORGANIZED SYSTEM FOR ISSUING THE CERTIFICATES OF ORIGIN FOR FERROUS SCRAP QUALIFYING FOR EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS, AND IN PARTICULAR BECAUSE OF ITS FAILURE TO PROVIDE FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SAID CERTIFICATES .
AT FIRST SIGHT, THE FACT THAT IT WAS POSSIBLE FOR THE ABUSES COMPLAINED OF TO CONTINUE FOR SEVERAL YEARS APPEARS TO INDICATE THAT THE ORGANIZATION WAS DEFECTIVE AND INSUFFICIENT . HOWEVER, THAT CONCLUSION IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN THIS CASE . IN FACT, IN LEAVING TO THE COMPETENT NATIONAL AUTHORITY THE TASK OF ISSUING THE NECESSARY CERTIFICATES, THE DEFENDANT PURSUED THE COURSE WHICH APPEARED THE MOST APPROPRIATE AND THE MOST LIKELY TO AFFORD THE BEST GUARANTEE AGAINST ANY ABUSE . SINCE THE CERTIFICATES FORMED AT THE SAME TIME THE LEGAL BASIS, ACCORDING TO NETHERLANDS LAW, FOR THE RE-EXPORT OF THE FERROUS SCRAP, IT WAS NATURAL TO ENTRUST THEIR ISSUE TO THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES WHO, MOREOVER, WERE THE BEST QUALIFIED TO CARRY OUT THE NECESSARY CHECKS .
THE ISSUE OF THE CERTIFICATES HAD NOT BEEN LEFT TO A SUBORDINATE AUTHORITY BUT TO A MINISTRY . THE NETHERLANDS REGULATIONS PROVIDED FOR AN EXTREMELY DETAILED PROCEDURE PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CERTIFICATES FOR CHECKING THE ORIGIN OF THE FERROUS SCRAP IN QUESTION; IT WAS IN FACT IMPOSSIBLE TO FORESEE THAT ACTS OF FRAUD COULD OCCUR IF THIS SYSTEM WERE APPLIED .
P . 252
IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DEFENDANT CANNOT BE BLAMED FOR HAVING ADOPTED THIS SYSTEM AND THE FACT OF ITS HAVING SO CANNOT IN ANY CASE BE DESCRIBED AS A WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION .
THIS ALSO HOLDS GOOD WITH REGARD TO LACK OF SUPERVISION . IN FACT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXCESSIVE TO CHECK CERTIFICATES COMING FROM A MINISTRY AND PURPORTING TO BE OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS, AT ANY RATE SO LONG AS THERE WAS NO INDICATION OF ABUSE WHICH COULD RAISE DOUBTS AS TO THEIR AUTHENTICITY .
THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPLICANT THAT THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT TO THE QUESTIONS PUT BY MR VAN DER GOES VAN NATERS AND MR NEDERHORST AND THE LETTER OF 24 FEBRUARY 1958 ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE EQUALIZATION FUND BY THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY, MR SPIERENBURG, CONSTITUTED AN ADMISSION OF A WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION SHOULD BE REJECTED . ALTHOUGH IN FACT THESE STATEMENTS DID ENQUIRE HOW AN IMPROVEMENT OF THE SYSTEM COULD AVOID SUCH DEFECTS IN FUTURE - AND IT WAS ONLY AFTER THE ACTS OF FRAUD THAT THOSE DEFECTS CAME TO LIGHT - THEY DO NOT CONSTITUTE AN EXPRESS ADMISSION THAT A WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY HAD OCCURRED . THEY CANNOT MOREOVER TRANSFORM A COURSE OF ACTION BY THE DEFENDANT INTO A WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION - A DESCRIPTION WHICH SUCH A COURSE OF ACTION DOES NOT IN FACT DESERVE .
FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE DEFENDANT IS NOT UNDER A DUTY TO MAKE REPARATION AND THE ACTION MUST, THEREFORE, BE DISMISSED AS BEING UNFOUNDED .
Decision on costs
UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS . IN THIS CASE THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED IN ITS PLEAS AND MUST THEREFORE BEAR THE COSTS .
Endorsements
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 ARTICLE 40 OF THE ECSC TREATY;
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, ESPECIALLY ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ),
Operative part
THE COURT
HEREBY :
1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATION AS BEING UNFOUNDED;
2 . ORDERS THE APPLICANT TO PAY THE COSTS .