Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . PROCEDURE - ABSTENTION BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY - CAPACITY TO LODGE AN ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT

( ECSC TREATY, ARTS . 35, 80 ).

2 . PROCEDURE - ABSTENTION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY - IMPLIED DECISION OF REFUSAL - APPLICATION TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE - NATURE OF THE APPLICATION

2A . PROCEDURE - APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT - APPLICANT UNDERTAKINGS AND ASSOCIATIONS - SPECIAL FIELD OF THE DISPUTE AND SPECIALITY OF THE PRODUCERS - NO LINK

( ECSC TREATY, ARTS . 33, 35 ).

3 . PROCEDURE - ABSTENTION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY - IMPLIED DECISION OF REFUSAL - APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT - INDIVIDUAL CHARACTER OF THE CONTESTED DECISION - UNDERTAKINGS AND ASSOCIATIONS - ADMISSIBILITY

( ECSC TREATY, ART . 33 ).

4 . PROCEDURE - ABSTENTION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY - IMPLIED DECISION OF REFUSAL - APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT - REPEAL OF THE MEASURE AGAINST WHICH THE HIGH AUTHORITY HAS ABSTAINED FROM TAKING ACTION - INTEREST OF THE APPLICANT IN PROCEEDING WITH ITS ACTION

5 . PROCEDURE - ABSTENTION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY - IMPLIED DECISION OF REFUSAL - APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT - SUBSEQUENT EXPRESS DECISION - APPLICATION MAINTAINED

( ECSC TREATY, ART . 35 ).

6 . COMMON MARKET - INCOMPATIBLE PRACTICES - PROHIBITION OF PRINCIPLE

( ECSC TREATY, ART . 4 ).

7 . COMMON MARKET - INCOMPATIBLE PRACTICES - SPECIAL CHARGES - CRITERIA FOR THE SPECIAL NATURE THEREOF

( ECSC TREATY, ART . 4 ( C )).

8 . COMMON MARKET - INCOMPATIBLE PRACTICES - DISCRIMINATION

( ECSC TREATY, ART . 4 ( B )).

9 . PRICES - MAXIMUM PRICES - GENERAL CHARGES - COMPATIBILITY

( ECSC TREATY, ART . 61 ).

Summary

1 . THE EXPRESSION " AS THE CASE MAY BE " MUST BE CONSIDERED AS GIVING THE POWER TO RAISE A MATTER WITH THE HIGH AUTHORITY TO THE PERSONS SPECIFIED IN ARTICLE 35 WHO HAVE AN INTEREST IN THE DECISION WHICH THE HIGH AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED TO TAKE OR IN THE RECOMMENDATION WHICH IT IS REQUIRED TO MAKE .

THE ASSOCIATIONS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 35 MAY ONLY BE ASSOCIATIONS OF UNDERTAKINGS WITHIN THE MEANING GIVEN TO THE WORD " UNDERTAKING " BY ARTICLE 80 OF THE TREATY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE WHOLE TREATY .

2 . PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED UNDER THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 35 OF THE TREATY ARE PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNULMENT AS PROVIDED IN ARTICLE 33 AND ARE THEREFORE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS THEREOF .

2A . THERE IS NO PROVISION OF THE TREATY WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE SPECIALITY OF THE PRODUCERS MUST BE LINKED TO THE SPECIAL FIELD OF THE DISPUTE .

3 . IT IS SUFFICIENT, IN ORDER THAT AN UNDERTAKING OR ASSOCIATION MAY BE ABLE TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST A DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION, FOR THAT DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION TO BE NOT GENERAL BUT INDIVIDUAL IN CHARACTER AND IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THAT DECISION TO MANIFEST THIS CHARACTER IN RELATION TO THE APPLICANT PROVIDED THAT IT CONCERNS THE APPLICANT .

A DECISION REFERRING SOLELY TO ONE PARTICULAR ACTIVITY OF A PUBLIC BODY REFERRED TO BY NAME IS A DECISION WHICH IS INDIVIDUAL IN CHARACTER .

4 . THE REPEAL OF A MEASURE AGAINST WHICH THE HIGH AUTHORITY HAS ABSTAINED FROM TAKING A DECISION OR MAKING A RECOMMENDATION DOES NOT RENDER THE APPLICATION DIRECTED AGAINST THAT ABSTENTION PURPOSELESS BUT LEAVES OPEN THE QUESTION AT ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE PAST . THE APPLICANT MUST THEREFORE BE REGARDED AS HAVING AN INTEREST IN PROCEEDING WITH ITS ACTION .

5 . THE FACT THAT THE HIGH AUTHORITY HAS STATED THE REASONS UPON WHICH ITS REFUSAL TO TAKE A DECISION IS BASED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 35 DOES NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF MAKING THE APPLICATION PROVIDED FOR IN THAT ARTICLE PURPOSELESS .

6 . THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 4 CONSTITUTE PROVISIONS ESTABLISHING THE COMMON MARKET OF THE COMMUNITY; THEY ARE THEREFORE DIRECTLY APPLICABLE WHEN THEY ARE NOT RESTATED IN ANY PART OF THE TREATY .

WHERE, HOWEVER, THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 4 ARE REFERRED TO, RESTATED OR ELABORATED ON IN OTHER PARTS OF THE TREATY, THE TEXTS RELATING TO ONE AND THE SAME PROVISION MUST BE CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE AND APPLIED SIMULTANEOUSLY .

7 . IN THE FIRST ANALYSIS, WITHOUT ITS BEING POSSIBLE TO CONSIDER THIS CRITERION BY ITSELF AS DECISIVE, A CHARGE MAY BE PRESUMED TO BE SPECIAL AND THEREFORE ABOLISHED AND PROHIBITED BY THE TREATY IF, BY AFFECTING UNEQUALLY THE PRODUCTION COSTS OF COMPARABLY PLACED PRODUCERS, IT INTRODUCES INTO THE DISTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTION DISTORTIONS WHICH DO NOT RESULT FROM CHANGES IN PRODUCTIVITY .

8 . THE PERSISTENCE OF DIFFERENCES IN CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IS A NECESSARY AND INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE OF THE PARTIAL NATURE OF THE INTEGRATION BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE TREATY AND DOES NOT INVOLVE DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED BY THE TREATY .

9 . THE FIXING OF MAXIMUM PRICES DOES NOT PREVENT PRODUCTS FROM BEING SUBJECT TO DUTIES, TAXES OR ANY OTHER GENERAL CHARGE AT THE TIME OF CONSUMPTION OR AT ANY STAGE WHATEVER OF DISTRIBUTION .