ASSIDER v HIGH AUTHORITY JUDGMENT OF 11. 2. 1955 — CASE 3/54
In Case 3/54
THE COURT composed of: M. Pilotti, President, P. J. S. Serrarens and Ch. L. Hammes (Presidents of Chambers), O. Riese, L. Delvaux, J. Rueff and A. van Kleffens, Judges, Advocate General: M. Lagrange Registrar: A. Van Houtte
gives the following
Judgment
Facts
1. Admissibility
(a) Defendant's arguments
(b) Applicant's arguments
2. Substance
A. Misuse of powers in respect of Articles 4 (b) and 60 of the Treaty; infringement of those articles
(a) Applicant's arguments
(b) Defendant's arguments
B. Misuse of powers in respect of Article 60 and 64 of the Treaty
(a) Applicant's arguments
(b) Defendant's arguments
C. Misuse of powers arising from the unreasonableness of the decisions
(a) Applicant's arguments
(b) Defendant's arguments
D. Misuse of powers in respect of Article 30 (2) of the Convention on the Transitional Provisions
(a) Applicant's arguments
(b) Defendant's arguments
Law
1. Admissibility
2. Substance
Costs
A. Misuse of powers;
B. Infringement of the Treaty.
(a). declare the application submitted by the Associazione Industrie Siderurgiche Italiane (ASSIDER) on 18 February 1954 and served on 19 February 1954 to be inadmissible (improponibile); or
(b). alternatively, dismiss the application as unfounded and in any event order the applicant to pay the costs of the action.
1. Admissibility
(a). Defendant's arguments
(b). Applicant's arguments
2. Substance
A. Misuse of powers in respect of Articles 4 (b) and 60 of the Treaty; infringement of those articles
(a). Applicant's arguments
(b). Defendant's arguments
B. Misuse of powers in respect of Article 60 and 64 of the Treaty
(a). Applicant's arguments
(b). Defendant's arguments
C. Misuse of powers arising from the unreasonableness of the decisions
(a). Applicant's arguments
(b). Defendant's arguments
D. Misuse of powers in respect of Article 30 (2) of the Convention on the Transitional Provisions
(a). Applicant's arguments
(b). Defendant's arguments
1. Admissibility
(a). The Court finds that by virtue of Article 2 of its articles of assocation the applicant is an association of undertakings fulfilling the conditions required by the second paragraph of Article 33 and by Article 48 of the Treaty.
(b). The contested decisions are general decisions. The Court rejects the defendant's argument that the admissibility of proceedings brought by undertakings or associations of undertakings against general decisions is subject to proof of the existence of a misuse of powers affecting them. Under the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 33 of the Treaty, undertakings or associations of undertakings may … institute proceedings … against general decisions … which they consider to involve a misuse of powers affecting them. From this wording, which is perfectly clear, for an application to be admissible it is enough for the applicant formally to allege that there has been a misuse of powers affecting it just as it is sufficient, as regards the admissibility of an application from a State, for it to allege the existence of one of the four grounds for annulment set out in the first paragraph of Article 33 of the Treaty. The allegation must indicate the reasons for which the applicant considers that there has been a misuse of powers affecting it. Those conditions have been fulfilled in this case. In the case of proceedings instituted by an association of undertakings it is sufficient for it to claim that there has been a misuse of powers affecting one or more undertakings which are members of the association. In the present case the applicant claims, with supporting arguments, that there has been a misuse of powers affecting the undertakings which it represents in terms of Article 30 of the Convention on the Transitional Provisions as well as of Articles 4 (b), 60 and 64 of the Treaty, and as a consequence also of the unreasonableness of the decisions in question.
(c). The Court agrees with the Advocate General's view that the three decisions in dispute may be contested in a single action.
2. Substance
1. Since Article 1 of Decision No 2/54 of the High Authority was for all purposes anulled by judgment of 21 December 1954 in the case of the French Government v The High Authority, this application for annulment has on this point no longer any purpose.
2. The same conclusion must be reached as regards Decision No 3/54 since the High Authority withdrew it by its Decision No 1/55 of 4 January 1955 (Journal Officiel of 11 January 1955, p. 542). It must in consequence also be stated that no decision is necessary in respect of Decision No 3/54 of the High Authority.
3. As regards Decision No 1/54 of the High Authority, the applicant relied on the same grounds as those invoked against the High Authority by the Government of the Italian Republic in Case No 2/54. The Court rejected those grounds in the judgment which it delivered in that case when it held that the provisions in question infringed neither the Treaty nor the Convention on the Transitional Provisions and did not constitute a misuse of powers. No new ground has been adduced capable of leading the Court to a different decision, whatever interpretation might be placed on the concept of a misuse of powers affecting them within the meaning of Article 33 of the Treaty.
4. In the judgment delivered on 21 December 1954 in the case of the Italian Government v The High Authority it was held that Articles 2 and 3 of Decision No 2/54 of the High Authority constitute neither an infringement of the Treaty or of the Convention on the Transitional Provisions nor a misuse of powers.
5. It is clear from the foregoing considerations that none of the contested provisions referred to in 3. and 4. above infringes the Treaty or the Convention on the Transitional Provisions.
6. The Court dismisses the conclusions claiming production of all the documents relating to the case; those produced by the defendant suffice in this case to explain to the Court the objectives being pursued by the High Authority.
On those grounds, Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the parties; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate General; Having regard to Articles 31, 33, 48, 60 and 80 of the Treaty; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court including those relating to costs, THE COURT hereby: