BRUSSELS, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PIERRE VAN DER REST AND BARON DONALD FALLON, DIRECTOR OF ITS ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DIVISION, ASSISTED BY MARCEL GREGOIRE, ADVOCATE AT THE COUR D'APPEL, BRUSSELS, AND J . MERTENS DE WILMARS, OF THE ANTWERP BAR, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE BELGIAN EMBASSY, 9 BOULEVARD DU PRINCE-HENRI, APPLICANT,
V
HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, GERARD OLIVIER, ACTING AS AGENT, ASSISTED BY ANDRE DE LAUBADERE, PROFESSOR IN THE FACULTY OF LAW, PARIS, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT ITS OFFICE AT 2 PLACE DE METZ, DEFENDANT,
Subject of the case
APPLICATION FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN ARTICLES 3 ( 1 ) ( B ), 6, 8 AND 9 OF DECISION NO 2/57 OF 26 JANUARY 1957 MAKING A FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT TO ENSURE A REGULAR SUPPLY OF FERROUS SCRAP TO THE COMMON MARKET, PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL OFFICIEL NO 4 OF 28 JANUARY 1957,
Grounds
P . 252
A - ADMISSIBILITY
ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT'S STATUTES IT CONSTITUTES A PRIVATE ASSOCIATION GOVERNED BY BELGIAN LAW HAVING AS ITS OBJECTIVE THE FURTHERANCE AND DEFENCE OF THE GENERAL INTERESTS OF BELGIAN IRON AND STEEL PRODUCERS; IT IS COMMON GROUND THAT THE CONTESTED PROVISIONS OF GENERAL DECISION NO 2/57 ARE CAPABLE OF AFFECTING CERTAIN INTERESTS, EVEN THOUGH PERHAPS DIVERGENT, ENTRUSTED TO THE APPLICANT . THE APPLICANT ACCORDINGLY HAS CAPACITY TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF JUSTICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 33, 48 AND 80 OF THE TREATY .
THE APPLICANT FORMALLY ALLEGES THAT ITS MEMBERS HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY MISUSE OF POWERS ON ONE OR MORE OCCASIONS; IT PRODUCES A RELEVANT STATEMENT OF THE REASONS LEADING IT TO BELIEVE THAT THERE HAS BEEN A MISUSE OF POWERS ON ONE OR MORE OCCASIONS . THE PURPOSE OF THE ARGUMENTS UPON WHICH IT RELIES IS IN FACT TO OBTAIN A DECLARATION THAT, WHEN THE HIGH AUTHORITY ADOPTED THE CONTESTED PROVISIONS, IT EXERCISED THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON IT UNDER ARTICLE 53 ( B ) OF THE TREATY FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN THOSE FOR WHICH THEY WERE CONFERRED UPON IT, BOTH THROUGH SERIOUS DISREGARD FOR CERTAIN OF THE OBJECTIVES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 3, AND THROUGH THE CLEAR INTENTION OF ATTAINING OBJECTIVES SPECIFICALLY GOVERNED BY ARTICLES 54 AND 59 WHILST AVOIDING THE SPECIAL PROCEDURES PRESCRIBED IN THE SAID ARTICLES, AND BECAUSE OF THE CONTRADICTION EXISTING BETWEEN THE VARIOUS OBJECTIVES STATED IN THE DECISION ON THE ONE HAND AND BETWEEN THOSE OBJECTIVES AND THE OBJECTIVES ACTUALLY PURSUED ON THE OTHER .
CONSEQUENTLY THE APPLICATION IS ADMISSIBLE .
B - SUBSTANCE
THE HIGH AUTHORITY HAS SELECTED ARTICLE 53 AS THE LEGAL BASIS OF THE SCHEME FOR THE EQUALIZATION OF FERROUS SCRAP WHICH IT HAS ESTABLISHED .
THAT ARTICLE PERMITS IT TO INTERVENE IN CONNEXION WITH THE TASKS ASSIGNED TO IT UNDER THE TREATY, IN PARTICULAR UNDER ARTICLE 3 THEREOF .
ARTICLE 53 APPEARS IN CHAPTER II, ENTITLED " FINANCIAL PROVISIONS ", THE OTHER ARTICLES OF