Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . PROCEDURE - APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT - DECISIONS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY - PREMATURE NOTIFICATION - PERMISSIBILITY

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 31 )

2 . COMMON MARKET - FERROUS SCRAP - EQUALIZATION - DECISION N . 2/57 OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY - FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 53; DECISION N . 2/57 OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY, ARTICLE 3 ( 2 ))

3 . COMMON MARKET - FERROUS SCRAP - EQUALIZATION - DECISION N . 2/57 OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY - ACCOUNTING PERIOD AND REFERENCE PERIOD

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 53; DECISION N . 2/57 OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY, ARTICLE 3 ( 2 ))

4 . COMMON MARKET - FERROUS SCRAP - EQUALIZATION - DECISION N . 2/57 OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY - ACCOUNTING PERIOD AND REFERENCE PERIOD, RESPECTIVE PURPOSES

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 53; DECISION N . 2/57 OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY, ARTICLE 3 ( 2 ))

5 . CARTELS - AUTHORIZATION

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLES 53 AND 65 )

6 . APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT - SYSTEM DEEMED EXPEDIENT BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY - SCOPE OF THE COURT'S POWER OF REVIEW

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 33 )

7 . COSTS - COSTS UNREASONABLE INCURRED

( RULES OF PROCEDURE, ARTICLE 69 ( 3 ))

Summary

AN APPLICATION AGAINST A LETTER CONSTITUTING PREMATURE NOTIFICATION OF A DECISION WHICH WAS ONLY FORMALLY ADOPTED AFTER THE LODGING OF THAT APPLICATION IS NOT INADMISSIBLE ON THAT GROUND IF, AT THE TIME WHEN THE OBJECTION OF INADMISSIBILITY IS RAISED, THE HIGH AUTHORITY HAS ALREADY ADOPTED A FORMAL DECISION CONFIRMING THE CONTENTS OF THE CONTESTED LETTER .

2 . THE MAIN PURPOSE OF DECISION N . 2/57 OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY WAS TO ENCOURAGE UNDERTAKINGS TO ECONOMIZE FERROUS SCRAP, AND THE ADDITIONAL CHARGE ON CONSUMPTION EXCEEDING CERTAIN LEVELS WAS ONLY A MEANS OF ACHIEVING THAT END .

3 . THE SYSTEM ESTABLISHED BY DECISION N . 2/57 OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY, FOR THE PURPOSES OF APPLYING THE ADDITIONAL RATE ON THE CONSUMPTION OF FERROUS SCRAP EXCEEDING THE LEVEL OF CONSUMPTION DURING THE REFERENCE PERIOD, INVOLVES A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE CONSUMPTION DURING THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD ( THREE MONTHS ) AND THE CONSUMPTION DURING THE REFERENCE PERIOD, WHICH IS NOT THE CONSUMPTION OVER SIX MONTHS, BUT THE AVERAGE CONSUMPTION FOR THREE MONTHS TAKEN FROM A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS CHOSEN BY EACH UNDERTAKING .

4 . THE DETERMINATION OF THE REFERENCE PERIOD AND THAT OF THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD SERVE DIFFERENT PURPOSES . THE PURPOSE OF THE FIRST IS TO ESTABLISH THE AVERAGE CONSUMPTION OF AN UNDERTAKING, WHILE ALLOWING UNDERTAKINGS A CERTAIN FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN THAT RESPECT, AND THE PURPOSE OF THE SECOND IS TO ENCOURAGE UNDERTAKINGS TO ECONOMIZE FERROUS SCRAP .

5 . THE PURPOSE OF ARTICLE 65 ( 2 ) ( B ) OF THE ECSC TREATY IS TO PREVENT THE AUTHORIZATION OF AGREEMENTS WHICH ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE RESULT IN CONSIDERATION OF WHICH THE AUTHORIZATION IS GRANTED IN DEROGATION OF THE GENERAL PROHIBITION LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 65 ( 1 ). THEREFORE THAT PROVISION CANNOT BE RELIED UPON WHERE THE PROPOSITION TO BE ESTABLISHED IS WHETHER THE CONTESTED DECISION IS TOO RESTRICTIVE AS REGARDS THE UNDERTAKINGS TO WHICH IT IS APPLICABLE . EVEN IF IT WERE POSSIBLE TO FIND IN ARTICLE 65 ( 2 ) ( B ) A GENERAL PRINCIPLE PROHIBITING THE HIGH AUTHORITY FROM TAKING MEASURES MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN IS NECESSARY FOR THOSE PURPOSES, THE MECHANISM ESTABLISHED BY DECISION N . 2/57 OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY WOULD NOT INFRINGE THAT PRINCIPLE .

6 . THE CHOICE MADE BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE DISCRETION CONFERRED ON IT BY THE TREATY, AS TO WHAT IS EXPEDIENT IN A GIVEN SYSTEM ( IN THE PRESENT CASE THE LENGTH OF THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD AND OF THE REFERENCE PERIOD ) IS ONLY SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE COURT, WHERE APPLICATION IS MADE TO IT UNDER ARTICLE 33 OF THE ECSC TREATY, IF THE COMPLAINT IS MADE, SUBSTANTIATED BY RELEVANT EVIDENCE, THAT THE HIGH AUTHORITY HAS COMMITTED A MISUSE OF POWERS OR HAS MANIFESTLY FAILED TO OBSERVE THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY .

7 . IF THE CONDUCT OF THE DEFENDANT HAS ENCOURAGED THE APPLICANT TO MAKE TWO APPLICATIONS, WHERE ONE WOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT TO SETTLE THE QUESTION IN DISPUTE, IT HAS CAUSED HIM TO INCUR COSTS UNREASONABLY .