JUDGMENT OF 11. 2. 1955 —CASE 4/54 I.S.A. v HIGH AUTHORITY
In Case 4/54
THE COURT composed of: M. Pilotti, President, P. J. S. Serrarens and Ch. L. Hammes (Presidents of Chambers), 0. 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 relation to Article 60 of the Treaty; infringement of that article
(a) Applicant's arguments
(b) Defendant's arguments
B. Misuse of powers in relation to Article 64 of the Treaty
(a) Applicant's arguments
(b) Defendant's arguments
C. Misuse of powers in relation to Article 30 (2) of the Convention on the Transitional Provisions; infringement of that article
(a) Applicant arguments
(b) Defendant's arguments
D. Absence of an explanation for the different views taken by the Council of Ministers and the Consultative Committee as evidence of misuse of powers
(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 Associate (I.S.A.) 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 relation to Article 60 of the Treaty; infringement of that article
(a). Applicant's arguments
(b). Defendant's arguments
B. Misuse of powers in relation to Article 64 of the Treaty
(a). Applicant's arguments
(b). Defendant's arguments
C. Misuse of powers in relation to Article 30 (2) of the Convention on the Transitional Provisions; infringement of that article
(a). Applicant arguments
(b). Defendant's arguments
D. Absence of an explanation for the different views taken by the Council of Ministers and the Consultative Committee as evidence of misuse of powers
(a). Applicant's arguments
(b). Defendant's arguments
1. Admissibility
(a). The Court finds that by virtue of Article 2 (b) of its articles of association the applicant is an association 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 60 and 64 of the Treaty, and, again, as a consequence of lack of a sufficient statement of the reasons on which the decisions in question were based.
(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 annulled 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 applicant regards as a departure from the rules of sound administration and in consequence as evidence tending to establish a misuse of powers the fact that, in stating the reasons on which the contested decisions were based, the High Authority failed to comment on the divergent opinions expressed within the consultative bodies. The Court does not share this view. Under Article 15 of the Treaty, the High Authority is bound to state the reasons on which its decisions are based and to refer to any opinions which were required to be obtained. It follows from this that it must state the reasons for which it decided to promulgate the rules in question and that it is bound to refer to the fact that the opinions required by the Treaty have been obtained. On the other hand, the Treaty does not require that it should mention, still less that it should try to refute, the divergent opinions expressed by the consultative bodies or by some of their members. The omission complained of cannot, in consequence, be regarded as proof or even the merest evidence, in support of the submission of misuse of powers.
7. 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: