CELEX: 61963CJ0001
Language: en
Date: 1963-12-16 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of 16 December 1963. # Macchiorlati Dalmas & Figli v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community. # Case 1-63.

Avis juridique important

|

61963J0001

Judgment of the Court of 16 December 1963.  -  Macchiorlati Dalmas & Figli v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community.  -  Case 1-63.  

European Court reports French edition Page 00615 Dutch edition Page 00643 German edition Page 00655 Italian edition Page 00605 English special edition Page 00303 Danish special edition Page 00449 Greek special edition Page 01011 Portuguese special edition Page 00357

SummaryPartiesSubject of the caseGroundsDecision on costsOperative part
Keywords

++++1 . MEASURES ADOPTED BY INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY - DECISIONS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY - STATEMENT OF REASONS - CRITERIA  ( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 15 )  2 . MEASURES ADOPTED BY INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY - DECISIONS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY - ENFORCEABLE DECISIONS - STATEMENT OF REASONS - SCOPE OF THE OBLIGATION TO STATE REASONS  ( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLES 15 AND 92 )  3 . MEASURES ADOPTED BY INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY - DECISIONS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY - STATEMENT OF REASONS - REFERENCE TO PREVIOUS MEASURES - INADEQUATE STATEMENT OF REASONS  ( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 15 )  

Summary

1 . CF . SUMMARY N . 4, CASE 14/61, REC . 1962, P . 253 .  A STATEMENT OF REASONS MUST BE DEEMED ADEQUATE, UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLES 15 AND 33 OF THE TREATY, WHEN IT ENABLES BOTH THE PARTIES CONCERNED AND THE COURT TO DISCOVER THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY'S REASONING .  */ EN.661J0014 /*.  2 . CF . SUMMARY N . 4, CASE 9/56, REC . 1958 ( JANVIER-JUILLET ), P . 13 .  DECISIONS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY ADOPTED IN APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 92 OF THE TREATY MUST CONTAIN AN EXACT AND DETAILED STATEMENT OF ALL THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS COMPRISED IN THE CLAIM PAYMENT OF WHICH THEY MAKE ENFORCEABLE . ONLY AN ACCOUNT OF THAT KIND CAN MAKE POSSIBLE A REVIEW BY THE COURT  */ EN.656J0009 /*.  3 . THE MERE REFERENCE TO PREVIOUS MEASURES CANNOT BE REGARDED AS COMPLIANCE WITH THE OBLIGATION TO STATE THE REASONS UPON WHICH A DECISION IS BASED .  

Parties

IN CASE 1/63  MACCHIORLATI DALMAS & FIGLI, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE IN TURIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, ANTONIO MACCHIORLATI DALMAS, ASSISTED BY ANTONIO ASTOLFI, ADVOCATE OF THE MILAN BAR AND AT THE CORTE DI CASSAZIONE, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF ERNEST ARENDT, 6 RUE WILLY-GOERGEN, APPLICANT,  V  HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, ITALO TELCHINI, ACTING AS AGENT, ASSISTED BY PIERO ZICCARDI, PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MILAN, ADVOCATE AT THE CORTE DI CASSAZIONE, DEFENDANT,  

Subject of the case

APPLICATION FOR THE ANNULMENT, REVOCATION OR VARIATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL DECISION OF 14 NOVEMBER 1962 WHEREBY THE HIGH AUTHORITY DEMANDS PAYMENT BY THE APPLICANT OF THE SUM OF 7 000 000 LIRE BY WAY OF SURCHARGES FOR DELAY IN PAYMENT OF THE LEVIES IMPOSED ON ITS PRODUCTION OF STEEL FOR THE YEARS 1953 TO 1960 INCLUSIVE, 

Grounds

A - ADMISSIBILITY  NO OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE PARTIES TO THE PROCEDURE IN THIS CASE AND THERE ARE NO GROUNDS FOR THE COURT TO RAISE THE MATTER OF ITS OWN MOTION .  B - SUBSTANCE  I - THE NULLITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL DECISION OF 14 NOVEMBER 1962  IT IS NECESSARY IN THE FIRST PLACE TO EXAMINE THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT BASED ON ARTICLE 33 OF THE ECSC TREATY WHICH IT PUTS FORWARD IN SUPPORT OF ITS PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS WHICH SEEK THE ANNULMENT OF THE INDIVIDUAL DECISION OF 14 NOVEMBER 1962 .  IN THIS RESPECT IT ARGUES FIRST THAT THE CONTESTED DECISION IS NULL AND VOID BECAUSE IT INFRINGES AN ESSENTIAL PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT SINCE THE STATEMENT OF THE REASONS ON WHICH IT IS BASED, PRESCRIBED BY THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 15 OF THE TREATY, IS EITHER LACKING OR INSUFFICIENT .  IT IS AGREED BY BOTH PARTIES THAT THE CONTESTED DECISION DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY EXACT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE CALCULATION OF THE PRINCIPAL SUM OR OF THE SURCHARGES FOR DELAY IN PAYMENT WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE MEASURE TAKEN AGAINST THE APPLICANT .  ACCORDING TO THE LAW AND THE RELEVANT DECISIONS OF THE COURT, THE STATEMENT OF THE REASONS ON WHICH DECISIONS ARE BASED MUST BE SO WORDED THAT IT NOT ONLY ENABLES THE PARTIES CONCERNED TO FIND OUT THE ESSENTIAL FACTORS IN THE HIGH AUTHORITY'S REASONING BUT ALSO ENABLES THE COURT TO CARRY OUT THE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DECISIONS ASSIGNED TO IT BY THE TREATY .  IN THIS CASE THE CONTESTED DECISION DOES NOT CONTAIN ANYTHING WHATSOEVER IN THE NATURE OF A STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT SHOWING HOW THE DEBT, WHICH IS ENFORCEABLE BY VIRTUE OF THE DECISION, IS CALCULATED AND THEREFORE DOES NOT ENABLE THE COURT TO CHECK THE RATE OF INTEREST ACTUALLY APPLIED OR THE NATURE OF SUCH INTEREST .  ONLY AN ACCURATE AND DETAILED STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT DETERMINING AND EXPLAINING THE AMOUNT OF THE SURCHARGES FOR DELAY IN PAYMENT, WHICH THE APPLICANT FIRM WAS LIABLE TO PAY IN RESPECT OF THE LEVIES ASSESSED ON ITS PRODUCTION OF STEEL FOR THE YEARS 1953 TO 1960 INCLUSIVE, COULD ENABLE THE COURT TO REVIEW THE LEGAL JUSTIFICATION OF THIS ENFORCEABLE CLAIM .  ALTHOUGH THE APPLICANT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DISCOVER THE CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF ITS DEBT FROM MEASURES PREVIOUSLY NOTIFIED TO IT, SUCH INFORMATION IS IN NO WAY TO BE OBTAINED FROM THE CONTESTED DECISION ITSELF .  THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 15 OF THE TREATY PROVIDES THAT DECISIONS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY SHALL STATE THE REASONS ON WHICH THEY ARE BASED . A REFERENCE TO PREVIOUS MEASURES CANNOT BE REGARDED AS COMPLIANCE WITH THIS OBLIGATION . MOREOVER THE CONTESTED DECISION CONTAINS NO EXPRESS REFERENCE TO SUCH MEASURES .  IT DOES NOT THEREFORE ENABLE THE COURT TO CHECK THE CALCULATION OF THE AMOUNT OF THE SURCHARGES FOR DELAY IN PAYMENT DUE FROM THE APPLICANT, THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PARTIAL REDUCTION OR THE AMOUNT THEREOF .  THE COMPLAINT OF INFRINGEMENT OF AN ESSENTIAL PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT, IN THIS CASE THE DUTY TO STATE THE REASONS UPON WHICH DECISIONS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY ARE BASED, IS WELL-FOUNDED .  THE CONTESTED DECISION MUST THEREFORE BE ANNULLED .  

Decision on costs

THE DEFENDANT HAS FAILED IN ITS CONCLUSIONS AND IT MUST THEREFORE BE ORDERED TO BEAR THE COSTS . 

Operative part

THE COURT  HEREBY : 1 . ANNULS THE INDIVIDUAL ENFORCEABLE DECISION OF 14 NOVEMBER 1962 ADDRESSED BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY TO THE APPLICANT;  2 . ORDERS THE HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY TO BEAR THE COSTS .