I —

At the present stage of the dispute between the National Carbonising Company Ltd. (NCC) and the Commission the Court is only required to give a ruling on the objection of inadmissibility which the Commission raises against the conclusions in the application lodged by that undertaking in Case 114/75. The activities of this English limited liability company include the production of domestic coke in its two plants at Barnsley and Rotherham. It purchases the coking coal which it requires from the National Coal Board (NCB), which enjoys a virtual monopoly of coal production in the United Kingdom. In 1974/75 NCC's sales represented approximately 9 % of the market in coal in the United Kingdom. The Coal Board has a wholly-owned subsidiary, National Smokeless Fuel Ltd. (NSF) which also manufactures domestic coke and whose sales for the same period amount to approximately 88 % of the British market. The NSF is thus what is termed a ‘price leader’. Since 1973 the price of coking coal has risen considerably in the United Kingdom. Although this increase was checked by a rebate granted by the Coal Board in its sales to NCC of coal intended for the production of domestic coke sold in the United Kingdom this rise has not been accompanied by an equivalent increase in the selling price of domestic coke. In fact the price of domestic coke is strictly controlled on economic and social grounds by the British Government. On 21 July 1975 Linklaters and Paines of London and Brussels, acting on behalf of NCC, addressed a letter to the Commission of the European Communities. In this letter NCC complained of the deterioration of its commercial and financial situation which it attributed to an infringement of the ECSC Treaty on the part of the Coal Board and of the British Government; it stated that it would shortly be obliged definitively to close its two plants at Barnsley and at Rotherham if steps were not rapidly taken to re-establish the profitability of the production of domestic coke. More specifically NCC requested the Commission to consider whether the Coal Board was not indulging in an unfair competitive practice with regard to prices (within the meaning of the first indent of Article 60 (1)), which furthermore constitutes a discriminatory practice (within the meaning of the second indent of Article 60 (1)) and whether this public undertaking was not misusing its dominant position (within the meaning of Article 66 (7)). It requested the Commission to take action under Article 67 or Article 61 or to grant it a financial aid pursuant to the powers which the Commission enjoys under Article 3. The letter concludes with a request, in accordance with Article 35 of the Treaty, to take action in order to ensure that the principles of the Treaty are observed. The Court can have no doubt but that this letter does indeed constitute the initial ‘formal notice’ necessary to initiate the procedure under the third paragraph of Article 35, as the Court understands it. Likewise the Commission does not dispute this and has not raised any objection in this respect in its defence in the action on the ground of a failure to act which NCC has initiated under Article 35 (Case 109/75). What it does dispute on the other hand is whether it was required or even merely empowered to take other measures than those which it adopted. In addition the departments of the Commission communicated with the Coal Board and the British Government and began their inquiries and negotiations. On 13 September a Director of the Directorate-General for Competition addressed a registered letter (No 75-01622) to the Coal Board wherein he formally noted that the Coal Board had undertaken to ensure that the rebate, which had hitherto been granted only for coal intended for the production of domestic coke used on British territory, would henceforth be applied uniformly to coal intended for the production of coke used in all the Member States and that the details of this rebate would be published in accordance with the Communication of the Commission published in the OJ C 29 of 12. 5. 1973, p. 28. The claim of NCC on the basis of the second indent of Article 60 (1) was accordingly satisfied in principle. With regard to the question of the production costs of the coking plants of NSF which was linked to the allegation of unfair competitive practices (temporary or local price reductions tending towards the acquisition of a monopoly position within the meaning of the first indent of Article 60 (1)) submitted by NCC, the Director requested the Coal Board to supply it as soon as possible with the analysis of the financial situation of that undertaking for the second quarter in order to check whether or not the coking plants of NSF were operating at a loss. Two days later, on 12 September 1975, and thus before the end of the period of two months on the expiry of which it was possible to lodge an application on the grounds of failure to act if the Commission did not take a decision or make a recommendation, the same Director notified NCC (Letter No 75-01642) that ‘following the intervention of the Commission’ the Coal Board had undertaken to modify its grant of a rebate on the price of coal intended for the production of domestic coke. Consequently NCC was able to avail itself of this new situation (provided that it itself conforms to the provisions of Article 60 (2) (b)) within the limits laid down by Decision 72/443/ECSC (OJ, Special Edition 1972 L 297 of 30. 12. 1972, p. 25). With regard to the question whether NSF was indulging in an unfair competitive practice (local and temporary price reductions) the Director notified NCC that the investigation was under way and that it would be advised of the outcome ‘as soon as possible’ and also of any further action which the Commission might propose. Likewise the Court cannot doubt that this letter constitutes a stalling reply which, as it has ruled, cannot interrupt the period of two months laid down in the third paragraph of Article 35 (judgment of 17 July 1959, Safe, Rec. [1959] p. 400). On 15 September 1975, that is, less than one month before the expiry of this period, since their request had been partly fulfilled, the solicitors of NCC thanked the Commission for its intervention, adding, however, ‘the two plants are … still faced with closure’. The problem still confronting them was whether the substantial change since 1 April 1975 in differential between the charge composed of the purchase price of coking coal and the manufacturing costs on the one hand and the selling price of domestic coke on the other hand, and the consequences thereof constituted an abuse by the Coal Board of its dominant position within the meaning of Article 66 (7) and an unfair competitive practice within the meaning of the first indent of Article 60 (1). On 16 September a meeting took place in Brussels between the officials of the Commission and representatives of NCC. On 26 September 1975 the Coal Board, in confirming a telephone discussion which it had had the day before with the relevant Director in relation to the complaint by NCC, notified him by telex that until 15 October the Coal Board would not alter the price of coal intended for the production of domestic coke or the rate of rebate in force. On the other hand, as the selling price of domestic coke was to be increased from 1 October, this benefited the manufacturers of this product and NCC in particular. The Board added, ‘this concession was made in order to allow the Commission to complete its investigations and on condition that the latter are concluded by 15 October at the latest’. On 25 September, the day before, NCC had notified the Director of Competition by telex that it took formal note of the proposals of the Coal Board and that it accepted them ‘without prejudice to the application of any decision which the Commission might take and without prejudice to any rights or measures of which NCC might avail itself under the Treaty’. Furthermore NCC stated that it found those measures insufficient even if they were permanent, that the closure of its two plants was imminent and consequently emphasized the urgent need for a solution. Thus from that date, whilst the Commission had partially and temporarily satisfied the complaint of NCC of 21 July 1975, it had failed to take any decision or make any recommendation within the meaning of the third paragraph of Article 35. Under that provision an implied decision of refusal is to be inferred from such silence and NCC had consequently a period of one month in which to institute proceedings against such refusal. Thereafter the tempo increased. On 15 October 1975 a meeting was held between the officials of the Directorate for Competition and of the Legal Service of the Commission and the representatives of NCC and its solicitors. In the course of this meeting, according to the notes taken by NCC, the competent Director declared that the Commission had not taken any decision or made any recommendation within the meaning of Article 35 and that the provisional conclusion of the Service was that NCB had not abused its dominant position in this particular case. Finally, since the Commission maintained that according to the provisions of the Treaty it had no power to intervene, a proposal to this effect was submitted to the Commissioner in charge of competition matters and NCC received a letter signed by the Director-General stating that the Commission could not accept its complaint. Perfectly logically NCC drew the consequences from this the very next day. By an application recorded at the Registry on 16 October 1975 under No 109, which was notified to the Legal Service of the Commission on the same day, NCC requested the Court to order the Commission to take a decision or make a recommendation — finding that the Coal Board has acted contrary to Article 60 and Article 66, — requiring the Coal Board to ensure the profitability of the production and sale of domestic coke in the United Kingdom, — finding that the British Government had acted contrary to the ECSC Treaty and requiring it to desist from interfering in the fixing of the prices of coking coal and coke for domestic use. On the same day NCC submitted an application for the adoption of interim measures under Article 39 of the ECSC Treaty and Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure on which the President of the Court gave a ruling by an order on the application for the adoption of an interim measure on 22 October 1975. Following this order the Commission adopted by a decision of 29 October 1975 measures of conservation for the benefit of NCC for the period running from 22 October 1975 to 15 January 1975 (OJ L 35 of 10. 2. 1975, p. 6). Further, on the same day, and here we thus come to the facts which are directly related to the present dispute, the Director-General for Competition sent NCC a registered letter (No 75-01866) relating to the letter from the applicant's solicitors of 21 July 1975. For the precise wording of that letter I refer to the report for the hearing and merely wish to mention that after recalling the interventions of the Commission with the Coal Board it concluded thus: ‘the Commission does not consider that NCB has infringed the Treaty’. By a telex message of 17 October 1975 within the framework of the procedure for an application for the adoption of an interim measure the Commission took note of that reply and, on 22 October 1975, before the order on the application for the adoption of interim measures was made, NCC notified the Commission that it intended to lodge an application for the annulment of the letter of 16 October 1975. In fact on 25 November 1975, and thus in good time, NCC lodged an application in accordance with Article 33 of the Treaty for the annulment of the ‘decision or of the recommendation of the Commission’ constituted, in its view, by the letter of the Director-General. This is indeed the subject-matter of the application in Case 114/75, the admissibility of which I shall consider in my opinion today. In this application the Commission has really raised an objection of inadmissibility on the ground that the letter of 16 October 1975 contained neither a decision nor a recommendation.