61964CJ0003_EN
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Endorsements
Operative part
Parties
IN JOINED CASES
( 1 ) 3/64
( A ) CHAMBRE SYNDICALE DE LA SIDERURGIE FRANCAISE, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 5 BIS, RUE DE MADRID, PARIS 8, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, JACQUES FERRY;
( B ) FORGES DE CHATILLON, COMMENTRY ET NEUVES - MAISONS, S.A ., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 19 RUE DE LA ROCHEFOUCAULD, PARIS 9, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, CLAUDE LAPLACE;
( C ) HAUTS FOURNEAUX DE LA CHIERS, S.A ., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT LONGWY-BAS ( MEURTHE - ET-MOSELLE ), REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ARSENE DE LAUNOIT;
( D ) LORRAINE-ESCAUT, S.A ., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 7 ROND-POINT BUGEAUD, PARIS 16, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ROLAND LABBE;
( E ) MOSELLANE DE SIDERURGIE, S.A ., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 31 AVENUE MONTAIGNE, PARIS 8, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MARCEL PETIET;
( F ) ACIERIES ET TREFILERIES DE NEUVES-MAISONS, CHATILLON, S.A ., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 4 RUE DE LA TOUR-DES-DAMES, PARIS 9, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND GENERAL MANAGER, PAUL BASEILHAC;
( G ) METALLURGIQUE DE NORMANDIE, S.A ., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 16 BOULEVARD MALESHERBES, PARIS 8, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ROGER ROUX;
( H ) ACIERIES DE POMPEY, S.A ., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT POMPEY ( MEURTHE-ET-MOSELLE ), REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND GENERAL MANAGER, ROBERT DE GUNZBOURG;
( I ) LAMINOIRS, HAUTS FOURNEAUX, FORGES, FONDERIES ET USINES DE LA PROVIDENCE, S.A ., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MARCHIENNE-AU - PONT ( BELGIUM ), REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR AND GENERAL MANAGER, JEAN COUDEL;
( J ) UNION SIDERURGIQUE LORRAINE ( SIDELOR ), S.A ., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 4 RUE DES CLERCS, METZ ( MOSELLE ), REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ROGER MARTIN;
( K ) UNION SIDERURGIQUE DU NORD DE LA FRANCE ( USINOR ), S.A ., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 14 RUE D' ATHENES, PARIS 9, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR AND GENERAL MANAGER, MAURICE BORGEAUD;
( L ) DE WENDEL ET CIE, S.A ., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 1 RUE PAUL-BAUDRY, PARIS 8, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, EMMANUEL DE MITRY;
AND ( 2 ) 4/64
( A ) CHAMBRE SYNDICALE DES PRODUCTEURS D' ACIERS FINS ET SPECIAUX, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 12 RUE DE MADRID, PARIS 8, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND GENERAL MANAGER, ROBERT MORIZOT;
( B ) HAUTS FOURNEAUX DE LA CHIERS, S.A ., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT LONGWY-BAS ( MEURTHE - ET-MOSELLE ), REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ARSENE DE LAUNOIT;
( C ) FORGES ET ATELIERS DU CREUSOT, S.A ., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 15 RUE PASQUIER, PARIS 8, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND GENERAL MANAGER, ALBERT DE BOISSIEU;
( D ) ALETIERS ET FORGES DE LA LOIRE, S.A ., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 12 RUE DE LA ROCHEFOUCAULD, PARIS 9, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, MARCEL MACAUX;
( E ) ACIERIES DE POMPEY, S.A ., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT POMPEY ( MEURTHE-ET-MOSELLE ), REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, ROBERT DE GUNZBOURG;
ALL ASSISTED BY ANDRE GARNAULT, ADVOCATE OF THE COUR D' APPEL, PARIS, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF THE CHAMBRE SYNDICALE DE LA SIDERURGIE FRANCAISE, 49 BOULEVARD JOSEPH-II .
APPLICANTS,
V
HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, GUY SAUTTER, ACTING AS AGENT, ASSISTED BY FREDERIC CHARTIER, ADVOCATE OF THE COUR D' APPEL, PARIS, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT ITS OFFICES, 2 PLACE DE METZ,
DEFENDANT,
Subject of the case
APPLICATION :
( A ) ( APPLICATION 3/64 ): FOR THE ANNULMENT OF ARTICLE 1(2 ) AND ARTICLES 2 ( ARTICLES 7, 8 AND 9 ) OF DECISION NO 19/63, AND OF ARTICLE 1(2 ) AND ( 3 ), ARTICLE 2(1 ) AND ( 2 ) AND ARTICLE 3 OF DECISION NO 20/63;
( B ) ( APPLICATION 4/64 ): FOR THE ANNULMENT OF ARTICLE 1(2 ) AND ARTICLE 2 ( ARTICLES 7, 8 AND 9 ) OF DECISION NO 19/63 AND OF ARTICLE 1(2 ) AND ( 3 ), ARTICLE 2 AND ARTICLE 3 OF DECISION NO 21/63;
Grounds
P.454
I - ADMISSIBILITY
UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 33 OF THE TREATY, UNDERTAKINGS OR ASSOCIATIONS OF UNDERTAKINGS MAY INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNULMENT AGAINST GENERAL DECISIONS ONLY IF THE LATTER ARE ALLEGED TO INVOLVE A MISUSE OF POWERS AFFECTING THEM .
THE CONTESTED MEASURES ESTABLISHED A LEGISLATIVE PRINCIPLE, LAYING DOWN CONDITIONS FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION AND SETTING OUT THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES RESULTING FROM THEM; THEY ARE THEREFORE GENERAL DECISIONS .
FURTHERMORE, THIS GENERAL NATURE IS NOT DISPUTED IN THE ACTION .
CONSEQUENTLY, FOR THEIR APPLICATIONS TO BE ADMISSIBLE, THE APPLICANTS MUST CONVINCINGLY POINT TO FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATING THE PROBABILITY THAT IN THIS INSTANCE THE HIGH AUTHORITY, THROUGH WANT OF FORESIGHT, OR SERIOUS LACK OF CARE AMOUNTING TO DISREGARD FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW, HAS PURSUED OTHER OBJECTIVES THAN THOSE FOR WHICH THE POWERS PROVIDED BY THE TREATY WERE CONFERRED UPON IT .
P.455
THE APPLICANTS HAVE NOT FULFILLED THAT REQUIREMENT .
THE FIRST COMPLAINT MADE AGAINST THE HIGH AUTHORITY, THAT IS, OF HAVING ACTED BY MEANS OF A DECISION AND NOT BY MEANS OF A RECOMMENDATION, IS REDUCED TO A SUBMISSION OF LACK OF COMPETENCE BASED ON AN ANALYSIS OF ARTICLE 63 OF THE TREATY .
THIS COMPLAINT, EVEN IF IT COULD BE JUSTIFIED, IS NOT SUCH AS TO LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE HIGH AUTHORITY IN THIS CASE PURSUED OBJECTIVES OTHER THAN THOSE FOR WHICH THE POWERS PROVIDED IN ARTICLE 63 WERE CONFERRED ON IT AND THAT IT THEREBY COMMITTED A MISUSE OF POWERS AGAINST THE APPLICANTS .
THE SECOND SUBMISSION CONSISTS IN ALLEGING THAT THE CONTESTED GENERAL DECISIONS INTENDED TO ESTABLISH A SYSTEM DISTORTING NORMAL CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION, SUBJECTING MIDDLEMEN, WHOSE ECONOMIC FUNCTION IS IDENTICAL, TO A DIFFERENT SYSTEM SOLELY ON THE FOOTING OF THEIR DIFFERING LEGAL STRUCTURE .
THIS ALLEGATION AMOUNTS TO ACCUSING THE HIGH AUTHORITY OF EMPLOYING LEGAL RATHER THAN ECONOMIC CRITERIA, WHICH, IF IT WERE TRUE, WOULD BE INSUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A MISUSE OF POWERS .
THEREFORE THE SECOND SUBMISSION IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE MISUSE OF POWERS IN QUESTION .
FINALLY, THE THIRD PLEA BASED ON THE ALLEGATION OF A LACK OF CARE AMOUNTING TO A DISREGARD FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE LAW IS BASED ON A DETAILED CRITICISM OF PUBLISHED TEXTS, WITH THE AIM OF PROVING THAT THE SAID TEXTS CONTAIN A SERIES OF UNCERTAINTIES AND OBSECURITIES WHICH COULD HARM THE APPLICANT'S OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMPETITION .
HOWEVER, THE MERE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE APPLICATION OF A TEXT MIGHT BE DISCRIMINATORY OR INCOMPLETE IS INSUFFICIENT TO VITIATE IT, ABOVE ALL SINCE THE REMEDY AGAINST SUCH A POSSIBILITY LIES IN THE VIGILANCE OF THE PERSONS CONCERNED WHO, UNDER ARTICLE 33, ARE ENABLED TO CONTEST THE IMPLEMENTING MEASURES CONCERNING THEM ON ALL THE GROUNDS SET OUT IN THE SAID PROVISION .
THUS THE LAST PLEA ALSO FAILS TO ESTABLISH MISUSE OF POWERS .
IT FOLLOWS FROM THIS THAT APPLICATIONS 3 AND 4/64 MUST BE DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE .
Decision on costs
UNDER ARTICLE 69(2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
IN THIS CASE, SINCE THE APPLICANTS HAVE FAILED IN THEIR ACTION, THEY MUST 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 THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY ARTICLES 2, 3, 4, 5, 14, 15, 33, 47, 60, 63, 64, 65, 80, 86, 95 AND 96;
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;
HAVING REGARD TO DECISION NOS 30/53, 31/53, 32/53, 1/54, 2/54, 37/54, 32/56, 33/58, 19/63, 20/63 AND 21/63 OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY;
Operative part
THE COURT
HEREBY :
1 . DISMISSES APPLICATIONS 3/64 AND 4/64 AS INADMISSIBLE;
2 . ORDERS THE APPLICANTS TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE ACTION .