JUDGMENT OF 23.4.1956 -JOINED CASES 7 AND 9/54 INDUSTRIES SIDERURGIQUES LUXEMBOURGEOISES V HIGH AUTHORITY
In Joined Cases 7 and 9/54
THE COURT composed of: M. Pilotti, President, J. Rueff and O. Riese (Presidents of Chambers), P. J. S. Serrarens, L. Delvaux, Ch. L. Hammes and A. van Kleffens, Judges, Advocate General: K. Roemer Registrar: A. Van Houtte
gives the following
JUDGMENT
Facts
1 — Facts and procedure
2 — Submissions and arguments of the parties
LAW
THE COURT
1. Consequences of the joinder of Applications 7/54 and 9/54
Part One
Application 7/54
A — The Admissibility of Application 7/54
I — The regularity of the procedure
II— The capacity ofthe applicant to raise the matter with the High Authority in application of Article 35 of the Treaty
III — The capacity of the applicant to institute proceedings before the Court of Justice against the implied decision of refusal which is to be inferred from the silence of the High Authority
IV — The interest of the applicant in proceeding with its action at law after the repeal by Ministerial Order of 12 September 1955 with effect from 2 April 1955 of the Ministerial Order of 8 March 1954 concerning the operation of the Caisse de Compensation attached to the Office Commercial du Ravitaillement
B — The substance of Application 7/54
I — The subject-matter of the application
II — The compatibility of the Caisse de Compensation with the provisions of the Treaty
C — Submission concerning infringement of the Treaty
I — Is Article 4 directly applicable or only as provided in this Treaty?
II — Is the levy imposed by the Caisse de Compensation a special charge prohibited by Article 4 (c) of the Treaty?
III — Is the levy imposed by the Caisse de Compensation a measure or practice which discriminates and which is abolished and prohibited by Article 4 (b) of the Treaty?
IV — Should the abolition of the import monopoly conferred on the Office Commercial du Ravitaillement have involved the abolition of the Caisse de Compensation which had been attached to it?
V — Does the levy imposed by the Caisse de Compensation infringe the decisions of the High Authority fixing, in application of Article 63 (2) (a) of the Treaty, maximum prices for hard coke and industrial coal from certain coalfields?
VI — Is the Caisse de Compensation incompatible with the fundamental principles of the Common Market?
D — The submissions concerning the infringement of essential procedural requirements
E — Costs
Part Two
Application 9/54)
E — Costs
1 —. Facts and procedure
1. that the activities of the Office Commercial du Ravitaillement, as the sole importer of coal into the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, should be brought to an end;
2. that the Caisse de Compensation attached to the Office Commercial du Ravitaillement by the Ministerial Order of 8 March 1954 should be prohibited and abolished;
1. A copy, certified by the applicant, of the letter which it had sent to the President of the High Authority on 14 July 1954;
2. A copy of the Decree of the Grand Duke of 30 April 1945 and of the Ministerial Order of 8 March 1954.
1. that the activities of the Office Commercial du Ravitaillement, as sole importer of coal into the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, should be brought to an end;
2. that the Caisse de Compensation attached to the Office Commercial du Ravitaillement by the Ministerial Order of 8 March 1954 should be prohibited and abolished;
1. Take note that the High Authority has an address for service in Luxembourg within the meaning of Article 31 (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court at its offices at 2, Place de Metz;
2. Take note that the High Authority leaves the decision as to the formal admissibility of the application to the discretion of the Court;
3. Declare that there is no need to give judgment on the head of the application requesting the annulment of the implied decision of refusal of the request that the activities of the Office Commercial du Ravitaillement should be brought to an end, because this request has become purposeless;
4. Declare that there is no need to give judgment on the head of the application requesting the annulment of the implied decision of refusal of the request that the Caisse de Compensation for solid fuels should be closed and abolished, since this application has become purposeless;
5. Order the applicant to bear the costs, fees and expenses.
I. Declare that the application containing two heads of claim, which are moreover related, is formally admissible;
II. A. Take note that the applicant, without prejudice to the statement of reasons upon which the decision adopted by the High Authority on 7 January 1955 concerning the Office Commercial du Ravitaillement was based, considers that as a result of that decision its application has become purposeless within the limits settled by the decision; and order the defendant to bear the costs relating thereto; B. (a) Declare that the application originally directed against the implied decision of refusal resulting from the silence of the High Authority stands in spite of the letter of the High Authority of 27 November 1954 which has no relevance to the dispute; (b) Declare that the application is well founded and accordingly; 1. Declare that the Caisse. de Compensation established by the Ministerial Order of 8 March 1954 constitutes a special charge contrary to Article 4 (c) of the Treaty; 2. Declare that the Caisse de Compensation established by the Ministerial Order of 8 March 1954 constitutes discrimination contrary to Article 4 (b) of the Treaty; Declare that the operation of the Caisse de Compensation is closely linked to the existence of the monopoly of the Office Commercial du Ravitaillement on imports and that the abolition of the latter must of necessity involve the abolition of the Caisse de Compensation: Declare that the levy, which amounts to an increase in the price of solid fuels for non-domestic use, is in breach of the decisions adopted by the High Authority on the basis of Article 63 (2) (a) of the Treaty, that is, Decisions Nos 4/53 of 12 February 1953, 6/53 of 13 March 1953,15/54 of 19 March 1954, 19/54 of 20 March 1954 and 20/54 of 20 March 1954; 3. Declare in any case that the operation of the Caisse de Compensation established by the Ministerial Order of 8 March 1954 infringes the most fundamental principles of the Common Market as established by the Treaty; Consequently: Declare that the High Authority must order, by means of a decision or recommendation, that the Caisse de Compensation attached to the Office Commercial du Ravitaillement by the Ministerial Order of 8 March 1954 should be prohibited and abolished; Order the High Authority to pay the costs, fees and expenses, without prejudice.
1. The issue of the Decree of the Grand Duke of 2 April 1955 amending the system of import tax and turnover tax on solid mineral fuels;
2. The issue of the Ministerial Order of 12 September 1955 repealing with effect from 2 April 1955 the Ministerial Order of 8 March 1954 concerning the operation, so far as solid fuels is concerned, of the Caisse de Compensation attached to the Office Commercial du Ravitaillement;
3. The issue of the Ministerial Order of 30 September 1955 repealing the Ministerial Order of 8 March 1954 on the importation of solid fuels and declaring the importation thereof to be free, the Government reserving to itself certain rights of intervention. That Order was to take effect from 1 October 1955;
4. The lodging, a few hours before the lodging of the rejoinder, of an application to intervene on the part of the Luxembourg Government, claiming that:
2 —. Submissions and arguments of the parties
1. As regards the admissibility of Case 7/54, the defendant relies on the following arguments:
2. As regards the plea of infringement of the Treaty, the applicant states that by maintaining the Office Commercial du Ravitaillement and the Caisse de Compensation, the Luxembourg Government has failed to fulfil the obligation on Member States under Article 86 of the Treaty and that the High Authority should have recorded that failure in application of Article 88.
1. Consequences of the joinder of Applications 7/54 and 9/54
A —. The Admissibility of Application 7/54
I —. The regularity of the procedure
II—. The capacity ofthe applicant to raise the matter with the High Authority in application of Article 35 of the Treaty
III —. The capacity of the applicant to institute proceedings before the Court of Justice against the implied decision of refusal which is to be inferred from the silence of the High Authority
IV —. The interest of the applicant in proceeding with its action at law after the repeal by Ministerial Order of 12 September 1955 with effect from 2 April 1955 of the Ministerial Order of 8 March 1954 concerning the operation of the Caisse de Compensation attached to the Office Commercial du Ravitaillement
B —. The substance of Application 7/54
I —. The subject-matter of the application
(a). The applicant's claim that the activities of the Office Commercial du Ravitaillement should be brought to an end
(b). Consequences of the letter of the High Authority of 27 November 1954 stating, after the expiry of the period of two months, the reasons upon which its refusal to take the decision requested by the applicant with regard to the Caisse de Compensation is based
II —. The compatibility of the Caisse de Compensation with the provisions of the Treaty
C —. Submission concerning infringement of the Treaty
I —. Is Article 4 directly applicable or only as provided in this Treaty?
II —. Is the levy imposed by the Caisse de Compensation a special charge prohibited by Article 4 (c) of the Treaty?
III —. Is the levy imposed by the Caisse de Compensation a measure or practice which discriminates and which is abolished and prohibited by Article 4 (b) of the Treaty?
IV —. Should the abolition of the import monopoly conferred on the Office Commercial du Ravitaillement have involved the abolition of the Caisse de Compensation which had been attached to it?
V —. Does the levy imposed by the Caisse de Compensation infringe the decisions of the High Authority fixing, in application of Article 63 (2) (a) of the Treaty, maximum prices for hard coke and industrial coal from certain coalfields?
VI —. Is the Caisse de Compensation incompatible with the fundamental principles of the Common Market?
D —. The submissions concerning the infringement of essential procedural requirements
E —. Costs
E —. Costs
Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the main parties and the intervener; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate General; Having regard to Articles 4, 33, 35, 48, 67, 80, 86 and 88 of the Treaty, Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute ot the Court ot Justice; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice and the Rules of the Court on costs ; Taking note of the applicant's statement that, without prejudice to the statement of reasons for the decision adopted by the High Authority on 7 January 1955 concerning the Office Commercial du Ravitaillement, it considers that as a result of that decision its application has become purposeless within the limits settled by that decision; THE COURT hereby:
I In Case 7 /54
(a) Declares that there is no need to proceed to judgment on the first head concerning the Office Commercial du Ravitaillement;
(b) Dismisses the application on the second head concerning the Caisse de Compensation attached to the Office Commercial du Ravitaillement;
II Declares that there is no need to proceed to judgment in Case 9/54;