JUDGMENT OF 16.7.1956 — CASE 8/55 FÉDÉRATION CHARBONNIÈRE BELGIQUE V HIGH AUTHORITY

In Case 8/55

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: M. Lagrange Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts

1. Procedure

2. Conclusions of the parties

3. Summary of the facts

4. Summary of the submissions and arguments of the parties

A. The admissibility of the application

B. Substance

I. Decision No 22/55 of 28 May 1955

(a) Power of the High Authority to fix the price list

(b) Power of the High Authority to fix prices at a reduced level

(c) Relationship between selling prices and estimated production costs

(d) Limitation on the power of the High Authority to intervene

(e) Intervention by the Belgian Government

(f) Fixing of selling prices without provision for equalization

II. The letter of 28 May 1955

(a) Reduction or withdrawal of equalization payments to certain undertakings

(b) The threat to withdraw the equalization payments

LAW

A — The admissibility of the application

B — Substance

1. Procedure

2. Conclusions of the parties

1. Annul Decision No 22/55 of the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community of 28 May 1955 and the price list annexed thereto in so far as it fixes reduced prices for certain types of coal;

2. Annul the decision contained in the letter addressed by the High Authority to the Belgian Government and in the table of rates of equalization annexed to that letter in so far as:

3. Summary of the facts

4. Summary of the submissions and arguments of the parties

A. The admissibility of the application

(a). The words affecting them must be interpreted as referring to a camouflaged decision, that is, a decision which, although appearing to be general in nature, refers in fact only to one or a small number of undertakings;

(b). If the Court does not share that opinion and considers that there is a misue of powers affecting an undertaking where the action taken constitutes a direct prejudice to its interests, it is still necessary to specify wherein the misuse of powers lies. The defendant maintains that there is a misuse of powers where an administrative measure is objectively in accordance with the legal rule but is vitiated from a subjective point of view as a result of the aim pursued by the administrative authority. It results from that definition that misuse of powers is a specific ground for annulment which is distinct from the three other grounds. It must therefore be made clear which of the grounds of complaint put forward in the application fall outside the submission of misuse of powers, which is the sole submission which the applicant is entitled to put forward.

B. Substance

I. Decision No 22/55 of 28 May 1955

(a). Power of the High Authority to fix the price list

1. In the opinion of the applicant, the High Authority could not unilaterally draw up and impose a price list either for all types of coal or for certain of them. It is clear from the Treaty that it is not for the High Authority but, under the terms of Article 26 of Convention, for the producers themselves to draw up that list.

2. Secondly, the applicant alleges that the High Authority abused or misused its powers — or both — in that, contrary to its obligations, it failed to give the reasons which led it to refuse to accept the price list pro posed by the producers in a letter dated 17 May 1955.

(b). Power of the High Authority to fix prices at a reduced level

(c). Relationship between selling prices and estimated production costs

(d). Limitation on the power of the High Authority to intervene

(e). Intervention by the Belgian Government

(f). Fixing of selling prices without provision for equalization

II. The letter of 28 May 1955

(a). Reduction or withdrawal of equalization payments to certain undertakings

(b). The threat to withdraw the equalization payments

A —. The admissibility of the application

1. Decision No 22/55 of the High Authority of 28 May 1955 and the price list annexed thereto, published in the Journal Officiel of 31 May 1955, in so far as they fix reduced prices for certain types of coal;

2. The decisions contained in the letter addressed by the High Authority to the Belgian Government on 28 May 1955 and in the table of rates of equalization annexed thereto in so far as:

B —. Substance

Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the parties; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate General; Having regard to Articles 2, 3 (c), 4, 8, 14, 33, 34, 36, 50, 60 and 61 of the Treaty and Articles 1, 8, 24, 25 and 26 of the Convention; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court and to the Rules of the Court concerning costs, THE COURT hereby:

1 Declares that the application is admissible;

2 Reopens the oral procedure. It will be exclusively concerned with the level of estimated production costs for each type and category of Belgian coal at the end of the transitional period and their significance in relation to the prices fixed by Decision No 22/55;

3 Fixes the date on which the parties must lodge at the Court Registry the additional information and specifications indicated in the present judgment at 1 September 1956 and that of the oral procedure at 20 September 1956 at 10.30 a.m.;

4 Reserves the costs.