Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . PROCEDURE - JUDICIAL DECISIONS - BASIS - FACTS AND DOCUMENTS UNKNOWN TO ONE PARTY - INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE

2 . PROCEDURE - INTERVENTION - OBJECTIONS OF INADMISSIBILITY NOT RAISED BY THE DEFENDANT - ADMISSIBILITY

( ECSC STATUTE, ARTICLE 34; RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT, ARTICLE 93 ( 5 ))

3 . PROCEDURE - ACTION FOR ANNULMENT - ADMISSIBILITY - FINDING OF A WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION ( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLES 33, 34, 40; STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ECSC, ARTICLE 40 )

4 . PROCEDURE - APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT OR FOR FAILURE TO ACT - ADMISSIBILITY - CONFIRMATORY MEASURE - CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLES 33, 35 )

5 . PROCEDURE - ACTION FOR FAILURE TO ACT - ADMISSIBILITY - CONCEPT OF FAILURE TO ACT

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 35 )

6 . PROCEDURE - ACTION FOR FAILURE TO ACT - ADMISSIBILITY - RIGHT AND OBLIGATION TO TAKE THE DECISION SOUGHT

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 35 )

7 . PROCEDURE - ACTION FOR FAILURE TO ACT - NATURE OF THE IMPLIED DECISION

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLES 33, 35 )

8 . UNDERTAKING - CONCEPT - LEGALLY DISTINCT INTEGRATED COMPANIES

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 80 )

9 . FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT - EQUALIZATION MACHINERY INTENDED TO ENSURE SUPPLIES OF FERROUS SCRAP, INVOLVING CHARGES ON 'BOUGHT SCRAP' AND EXEMPTION OF 'OWN RESOURCES' - CONCEPT OF 'OWN RESOURCES' - DELIVERIES WITHIN A GROUP OF UNDERTAKINGS - LOCAL INTEGRATION - ILLEGALITY OF THE EXEMPTION

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLES 4, 53, 80; DECISION N . 2/57 OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY, ARTICLES 3, 4 )

10 . DECISION CONFERRING SUBJECTIVE RIGHTS OR SIMILAR ADVANTAGES - RETROACTIVE WITHDRAWAL - CONDITIONS

Summary

1 . IT WOULD INFRINGE A BASIC PRINCIPLE OF LAW TO BASE A JUDICIAL DECISION ON FACTS AND DOCUMENTS OF WHICH THE PARTIES, OR ONE OF THEM, HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO TAKE COGNIZANCE AND IN RELATION TO WHICH THEY HAVE NOT THEREFORE BEEN ABLE TO FORMULATE AN OPINION .

2 . AN INTERVENER WHO SUPPORTS THE DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO RAISE OBJECTIONS OF INADMISSIBILITY WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN PUT FORWARD BY THE LATTER, TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH SUCH OBJECTIONS SEEK THE REJECTION OF THE APPLICANT'S CONCLUSIONS .

3 . A FINDING OF LIABILITY ON THE PART OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY FOR A WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION IS NOT AMONG THE ACTIONS FOR LACK OF COMPETENCE GOVERNED BY ARTICLE 33 OF THE ECSC TREATY, BUT CAN BE FOUNDED ONLY UPON ARTICLE 40 OR POSSIBLY UPON ARTICLE 34 OF THAT TREATY . IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO BASE A CONTRARY ARGUMENT ON THE THIRD SENTENCE OF ARTICLE 40 OF THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF THE ECSC, SINCE THAT PROVISION IS INTENDED ONLY TO FIX A LIMITATION PERIOD WITHOUT ALTERING THE CHARACTER OF THE APPLICATION PROVIDED FOR IN THE MATTER .

4 . AN APPLICATION MADE AGAINST A MEASURE WHICH MERELY CONFIRMS A PREVIOUS MEASURE IS ADMISSIBLE WHEN THE LIMITATION PERIOD LAID DOWN FOR THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION AGAINST THE CONFIRMED MEASURE HAS EXPIRED .

THAT RULE DOES NOT APPLY IF, BETWEEN THE ADOPTION OF THE PREVIOUS MEASURE AND THAT OF THE SUBSEQUENT MEASURE, THE ESSENTIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS WHICH GOVERNED THE ADOPTION OF THE FIRST MEASURE HAVE UNDERGONE A CHANGE, ESPECIALLY AS A RESULT OF A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT REQUIRING THE AUTHOR OF THE MEASURE TO RECONSIDER ITS POSITION .

5 . THE FAILURE TO ACT REFERRED TO BY ARTICLE 35 OF THE TREATY IS DISTINGUISHED BY THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESS DECISION .

IT IS THEREFORE NOT POSSIBLE TO REGARD THE FAILURE TO ACT AS HAVING BEEN INTERRUPTED BY PREPARATORY WORK FOR SUCH A DECISION OR BY THE FACT THAT THE HIGH AUTHORITY REPLIED TO THE PARTY CONCERNED THAT THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY IT WERE BEING STUDIED .

6 . THE QUESTION WHETHER THE HIGH AUTHORITY HAD THE RIGHT TO TAKE THE DECISION SOUGHT AND WHETHER IT WAS OBLIGED TO TAKE IT WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS FOLLOWING NOTICE, DEPENDS ON AN EXAMINATION OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE . FOR AN ACTION FOR FAILURE TO ACT TO BE ADMISSIBLE, IT SUFFICES THAT THE HIGH AUTHORITY HAS TAKEN NO DECISION BY THE EXPIRY OF THAT PERIOD .

7 . THE GENERAL OR INDIVIDUAL NATURE OF THE IMPLIED DECISION OF REJECTION DEPENDS ON THE WORDING OF THE PRIOR REQUEST ADDRESSED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE HIGH AUTHORITY AND ON THE NATURE WHICH THE DECISION WHICH WAS REFUSED WOULD HAVE HAD .

8 . THE CONCEPT OF AN UNDERTAKING WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TREATY MAY BE IDENTIFIED WITH THAT OF A NATURAL OR LEGAL PERSON . CONSEQUENTLY, SEVERAL COMPANIES EACH HAVING DISTINCT LEGAL PERSONALITY CANNOT CONSTITUTE A SINGLE UNDERTAKING WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TREATY, EVEN IF THOSE COMPANIES DISPLAY A HIGH DEGREE OF ECONOMIC INTEGRATION .

9 . IF THE HIGH AUTHORITY MAKES FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS TO ENSURE REGULAR SUPPLIES OF FERROUS SCRAP FOR THE COMMON MARKET, AND IF IN SO DOING IT LAYS DOWN THAT UNDERTAKINGS ARE TO BE SUBJECT TO AN EQUALIZATION LEVY IN RESPECT OF 'BOUGHT SCRAP', WHILST 'OWN RESOURCES' ARE TO BE EXEMPT, THE PRINCIPLE THAT DELIVERIES WHICH ONE UNDERTAKING RECEIVES FROM ANOTHER WITH WHICH IT FORMS A GROUP CANNOT BE REGARDED AS 'OWN RESOURCES' ALSO APPLIES WHEN THE COMPANIES IN QUESTION ARE IN A SITUATION OF LOCAL INTEGRATION, EVEN OF A VERY HIGH ORDER .

10 . ( A ) A LEGAL DECISION CONFERRING ON THE PERSON CONCERNED SUBJECTIVE RIGHTS OR SIMILAR BENEFITS CANNOT BE WITHDRAWN RETROACTIVELY .

( B ) ON THE OTHER HAND, IF A DECISION OF THIS NATURE IS ILLEGAL, IT MAY BE WITHDRAWN WITH RETROACTIVE EFFECT :

IF, TAKING ACCOUNT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN SAFEGUARDING THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY OVERRIDES THE INTEREST OF THE BENEFICIARIES IN MAINTAINING A SITUATION WHICH THEY TOOK TO BE SETTLED, WHICH THE LEGAL DECISION HAS HAD PREJUDICIAL EFFECTS ON THE BENEFICIARIES' COMPETITORS :

OR IF THE ILLEGAL DECISION WAS ADOPTED ON THE BASIS OF FALSE OR INCOMPLETE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE BENEFICIARIES .

AN APPRAISAL OF THE RESPECTIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE INTERESTS IN QUESTION AND, CONSEQUENTLY, A DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO WITHDRAW THE ILLEGAL DECISION WITH RETROACTIVE EFFECT DEVOLVE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE ON THE AUTHOR OF THAT DECISION .