JUDGMENT OF 29.11.1956 — CASE 9/55 BEERINGEN AND OTHERS V HIGH AUTHORITY
In Case 9/55
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
The first complaint — Reduction or withdrawal of equalization from certain undertakings
The second complaint — Fixing of the new rates of equalization at a flat rate
The third complaint — Threat to withdraw the equalization payments
The fourth complaint — Power of the High Authority to fix prices at a reduced level
The fifth complaint — Fixing of selling prices without provision for equalization
Law
A — The admissibility of the application
B — Substance
The first complaint — Reduction or withdrawal of equalization as regards certain undertakings
The second complaint — Fixing of the new rates of equalization at a flat rate
The third complaint — The threat to withdraw equalization
The fifth complaint — Fixing of selling prices in certain cases without provision for equilization
Costs
1. Procedure
2. Conclusions of the parties
1. Annul the decision of the High Authority contained in the letter of 28 May 1955 from the President of the High Authority to the Belgian Minister for Economic Affaire and in the annex to that letter entitled Table of equalization rates applying to the various types of Belgian coal, at least in so far as the decision abolishes all equalization for a range of coals known as fat coal B or provides for it to be paid at reduced rates where the coal is produced by the applicant undertakings, and in so far as it decides that in the future equalization payments will be or may be withdrawn from certain undertakings on the ground that they are not making the effort to reequip considered possible and necessary or are refusing to carry out the transfers or exchanges of deposits which are regarded as indispensable for a better development of the mining areas;
2. 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, not only in so far as it corresponds to the aforementioned decision but also in that it is itself unlawful and involves a misuse of powers, in that if fixes on its own authority a list of reduced prices for certain types of coal and obliges the applicant companies to abide by it, even as regards those types for which equalization is not paid to them although it is paid to other producers.
3. Summary of the facts
4. Summary of the submissions and arguments of the parties
A —. The admissibility of the application
1. The defendant leaves the question of the admissibility of the fourth and fifth complaints to the wisdom of the Court. In fact, it considers it doubtful that those two complaints are admissible since the applicants have merely referred to the application brought by a third party in another case (Case 8/55), or invoked the unlawful nature of Decision No 22/55, without indicating which grounds for annulment are involved.
2. The defendant accepts that in so far as the letter of 28 May 1955 reduces the equalization payments made to three collieries it is individual in nature. There is no dispute as to the admissibility of the application on that point and the decision in question may be contested on all the grounds for annulment.
B —. Substance
(a). In the opinion of the applicants, 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 the Convention, for the producers themselves to draw up that list.
(b). The applicants maintain that, having regard to the aims of Article 26(2), the High Authority infringed that article and misused its powers by adopting, in the present state of the market, Decision No 22/55, which imposes reduced prices for certain types of coal. The recitals to that decision and the grounds set out in the letter of 28 May 1955 show that the decision pursues objectives which are structural in nature, for which there is no legal basis in Article 26(2); structural reform is the aim of a whole series of measures to reorganize production plant in order to make it possible to reduce cost prices.
(c). Before the reopening of the oral procedure prescribed by the Order of the Court of 17 July 1956 the parties provided certain information and details concerning the level of estimated production costs at the end of the transitional period.
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, No 12, 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, 5, 8, 14, 33, 34, 36, 50, 60, 61 and 62 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 of Justice; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court and to the Rules of the Court concerning costs, THE COURT hereby:
1 Dismisses the application for the annulment of certain decisions of the High Authority resulting from its letter of 28 May 1955 to the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium concerning the adjustment of the equalization system and of Decision No 22/55 of the High Authority of 28 May 1955;
2 Orders the applicants to bear the costs.