JUDGMENT OF 10. 12. 1957 -CASE 8/56 ALMA v HIGH AUTHORITY

In Case 8/56

THE COURT composed of: M. Pilotti, President, Ch. L. Hammes and P. J. S. Serrarens, 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

I — Conclusions of the parties

II — Background to the case

III — Submissions and arguments of the parties

A — Infringement of Article 36

B — Infringement of Article 64

IV — Procedure

Law

A — Infringement of Article 36 of the Treaty

B — Infringement of Article 64 of the Treaty

C — Amount of the fine

D — Costs

I —. Conclusions of the parties

II —. Background to the case

1. On 4 November 1955 the High Authority sent to the applicant a registered letter recording that the undertaking had not yet sent to the High Authority its price lists and conditions of sale, that it had therefore infringed the provisions of Article 60 (2) of the Treaty and those of the High Authority's Decisions Nos 31/53 and 2/54 and that it had thereby rendered itself liable to the sanctions laid down in Article 64 of the Treaty. The applicant was invited to submit reasoned comments on this subject within fifteen days, in the absence of which the High Authority would order it to pay a fine.

2. Since this letter remained unanswered, on 24 October 1956 the High Authority took the decision contested in this case. The said decision, based in particular on Articles 36,60 and 64 of the Treaty and on the High Authority's Decisions Nos 31/53, 2/54 and 37/54, imposed on the applicant a fine of Lit 800000 for infringement of the duty to publish its price lists. This decision was notified by registered letter dated 9 November 1956, delivered to a senior employee of the applicant company on 13 or 14 November 1956.

3. On 10 December 1956 the applicant commenced the present proceedings against the abovementioned decision.

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

A —. Infringement of Article 36

(a). The applicant maintains in its application that the warning letter of 4 November 1955 arrived neither at its registered office nor at its works. In its reply and at the hearing it merely stated that the letter was never delivered to its sole director at Magliano Alpi.

(b). The defendant denies that it infringed Article 36. It annexes to its statement of defence a photocopy of the acknowledgement of receipt of its letter of 4 November 1955, which bears, besides the signature, the seal of ALMA. It is therefore clear that the errors in the address, which were in any event very slight, had no effect. It does not matter whether or not the letter was forwarded to Magliano Alpi; it is sufficient that it was delivered at the applicant's registered office to a person authorized to receive mail on be-half of ALMA.

B —. Infringement of Article 64

(a). In the applicant's view the High Authority was unaware that Article 64 of the Treaty may be used as the basis for determining a fine only where the sanction is imposed in respect of prohibited practices such as discrimination and unfair competition, which are offences of which the applicant has never been guilty. Indeed, that article provides for fines not exceeding twice the value of the sales effected [in disregard of the provisions]. The High Authority's argument would therefore lead to the absurd result that, in view of the volume of sales effected on the basis of the price lists which were not communicated to the High Authority, the applicant could have been ordered to pay a fine of between Lit 100 and 200 million.

(b). The defendant replies that the applicant's argument is totally devoid of foundation. Article 64, which is perfectly clear, also provides for fines in the case of infringements of preventive rules, such as decisions adopted for the purpose of regulating the publication of price lists. Although it enables very heavy fines to be imposed, it does not, however, require the High Authority to fix them at the maximum provided. The applicant cannot complain that it has incurred a sanction which could have been much more severe.

IV —. Procedure

A —. Infringement of Article 36 of the Treaty

B —. Infringement of Article 64 of the Treaty

C —. Amount of the fine

D —. Costs

Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the oral observations of the parties; Upon hearing the Opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to Articles 36, 47, 60 and 64 of the Treaty; Having regard to Decisions Nos 31/53, 2/54 and 37/54 of the. High Authority; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court as well as the Rules of the Court concerning costs, THE COURT hereby: