Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . PROCEDURE - APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT - OBJECTION OF ILLEGALITY - SCOPE OF ARTICLE 36 OF THE TREATY

2 . PROCEDURE - APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT - OBJECTION OF ILLEGALITY - ANNULMENT OF AN INDIVIDUAL IMPLEMENTING DECISION - EFFECTS

3 . PROCEDURE - APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT - OBJECTION OF ILLEGALITY - ANNULMENT OF AN INDIVIDUAL IMPLEMENTING DECISION - GROUNDS

4 . COMMON MARKET - FERROUS SCRAP - EQUALIZATION - SAFEGUARDS

5 . COMMON MARKET - FERROUS SCRAP - EQUALIZATION - INTERFERENCE WITH THE NORMAL CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION

6 . COMMON MARKET - FERROUS SCRAP - EQUALIZATION - GENERAL OBJECTIVES OF THE TREATY - CONCEPT OF " COMMON INTEREST "

7 . MISUSE OF POWERS - SUBSTITUTION OF OBJECTIVE

8 . FERROUS SCRAP - EQUALIZATION - UNIFORM RATE FOR THE SAKE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLICITY - MISUSE OF POWERS

Summary

( SEE SUMMARY IN CASE 9/56 PARAGRAPH 1 ):

1 . THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 36 OF THE TREATY DOES NOT CONTAIN A SPECIAL RULE, APPLICABLE ONLY IN THE CASE OF PECUNIARY SANCTIONS AND PERIODIC PENALTY PAYMENTS, BUT A GENERAL PRINCIPLE, EMPHASIZED IN THAT ARTICLE, BECAUSE IT IS TO BE APPLIED TO THE PARTICULAR CASE OF AN ACTION IN WHICH THE COURT HAS UNLIMITED JURISDICTION . THE FACT THAT THE PRINCIPLE IS EXPRESSLY STATED IN THE SAID ARTICLE DOES NOT EXCLUDE THE APPLICATION OF THE SAME PRINCIPLE IN CASES IN WHICH IT IS NOT EXPRESSLY STATED

( TREATY, ARTICLES 33, 36 ).

*/ 656J0009 /*.

( SEE SUMMARY IN CASE 9/56 PARAGRAPH 2 ):

2 . THE ILLEGALITY OF THE GENERAL DECISION ON WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL DECISION IS BASED CAN LEAD ONLY TO THE ANNULMENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL DECISION .

*/ 656J0009 /*.

( SEE SUMMARY IN CASE 9/56 PARAGRAPH 3 ):

3 . AN APPLICANT MAY PUT FORWARD THE FOUR GROUNDS OF ANNULMENT SET OUT IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 33 FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTESTING THE LEGALITY OF THE GENERAL DECISION ON WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL DECISION IN DISPUTE IS BASED

( TREATY, ARTICLE 33 )

*/ 656J0009 /*.

4 . THE DIFFICULTIES ARISING AS A RESULT OF A MEASURE WHICH THE HIGH AUTHORITY HAS ADOPTED IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON IT BY THE TREATY BUT THE EXERCISE OF WHICH IS NOT DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMON MARKET CANNOT JUSTIFY THE ADOPTION OF SAFEGUARDS WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 29 OF THE CONVENTION

( CONVENTION, ARTICLE 29 )

5 . IN PROMULGATING ECONOMIC RULES, A PUBLIC AUTHORITY HAS A DUTY TO ACT WITH CIRCUMSPECTION AND TO INTERVENE ONLY AFTER CAREFULLY BALANCING THE VARIOUS INTERESTS CONCERNED WHILE SO FAR AS POSSIBLE RESTRICTING THE FORESEEABLE DAMAGE TO THIRD PARTIES .

HOWEVER, THE CONTENTION THAT, IN ADOPTING ITS MEASURES, THE HIGH AUTHORITY OUGHT TO HAVE ENSURED THAT THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE COMPETITIVE POSITION OF PRODUCERS OF PIG-IRON AS COMPARED WITH OTHER SCRAP CONSUMERS IS AN UNREASONABLE DEMAND

( TREATY, ARTICLES 3 AND 5 )

6 . WHERE THE HIGH AUTHORITY IS EMPOWERED TO PROMULGATE MEASURES " IN THE COMMON INTEREST ", IT CAN USE ITS POWER TO MAKE REGULATIONS AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRE, EVEN AT THE EXPENSE OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS, BUT IT MUST TAKE ACTION ONLY TO THE EXTENT WHICH IS STRICTLY NECESSARY

( TREATY, ARTICLE 3 )

( SEE SUMMARY IN CASE 2/57 PARAGRAPH 3 ):

7 . THE LEGALITY OF A DECISION CANNOT DEPEND ON ITS CONFORMITY OR OTHERWISE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF A MEMORANDUM PUBLISHED BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY BUT ONLY ON ITS CONFORMITY OR OTHERWISE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY . IN ORDER TO PROVE A MISUSE OF POWERS, THE CONTESTED DECISION MUST BE SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN PURSUING AN OBJECTIVE OTHER THAN THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF WHICH THE HIGH AUTHORITY WAS ENTITLED TO ACT

( TREATY, ARTICLE 33 ).

*/ 657J0002 /*.

( SEE SUMMARY IN CASE 2/57 PARAGRAPH 4 ):

8 . SINCE THE UNIFORM EQUALIZATION RATE WAS HELD TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY, THE CONTESTED DECISIONS WOULD STILL BE IN ORDER EVEN IF IT WERE PROVED THAT THIS UNIFORMITY WAS ALSO SELECTED OUT OF CONCERN TO AVOID ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLICATIONS

( TREATY, ARTICLES 33 AND 53 ).

*/ 657J0002 /*.