Judgment of the Court of 8 July 1965. - Chambre syndicale de la sidérurgie française and others v High Authority of the ECSC. - Joined cases 3 and 4-64.



European Court reports

French edition Page 00567

Dutch edition Page 00668

German edition Page 00596

Italian edition Page 00826

English special edition Page 00441

Danish special edition Page 00093

Greek special edition Page 00125

Portuguese special edition Page 00153



Summary

Parties

Subject of the case

Grounds

Decision on costs

Operative part



Keywords

++++

1 . PROCEDURE - APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT - GENERAL DECISION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE ECSC - APPLICANT UNDERTAKINGS - MISUSE OF POWERS - ALLEGATION - ADMISSIBILITY

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 33 )

2 . MEASURES ADOPTED BY AN INSTITUTION - GENERAL DECISION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE ECSC - CONCEPT

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 33 )

3 . MEASURES ADOPTED BY AN INSTITUTION - GENERAL DECISION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE ECSC - POSSIBILITY OF MISAPPLICATION - ABSENCE OF MISUSE OF POWERS AFFECTING AN UNDERTAKING

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 33 )

Summary

1 . FOR AN APPLICATION BY AN UNDERTAKING AGAINST A GENERAL DECISION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY TO BE ADMISSIBLE, THE UNDERTAKING IN QUESTION 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 .

CF . PARA . 2, SUMMARY, CASE 8/57, ( 1958 ) ECR 227 .

2 . A GENERAL DECISION IS ONE WHICH ESTABLISHES A LEGISLATIVE PRINCIPLE, LAYING DOWN CONDITIONS FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION AND SETTING OUT THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES RESULTING FROM THEM .

CF . PARA . 5, SUMMARY, CASE 13/57, ( 1958 ) ECR 265 .

3 . A GENERAL DECISION IS NOT VITIATED BY MISUSE OF POWERS AGAINST AN UNDERTAKING BY THE MERE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THAT DECISION MIGHT BE DISCRIMINATORY OR INCOMPLETE, 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 .

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 .

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 .