JUDGMENT OF 13. 6. 1958 — CASE 10/56 MERONI v HIGH AUTHORITY

In Case 10/56

THE COURT composed of: M. Pilotti, President, A. van Kleffens and L. Delvaux, Presidents of Chambers, P. J. S. Serrarens, O. Riese, J. Rueff, Ch. L. Hammes, Judges, Advocate-General: K. Roemer Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts

I — Facts and procedure

II — Submissions and arguments of the parties

Law

A — Admissibility

B — Substance

First submission: infringement of an essential procedural requirement

Second submission: manifest failure to observe the provisions of the Treaty

(I) Insufficient information

(II) The provisional nature of the notices to pay addressed to the applicant

Third submission: misuse of powers

(I) Inaccuracy of the calculations made by the Brussels agencies

(II) Infringement of the recommendations which the Council of Ministers allegedly appended to its unanimous assent in respect of Decision No 14/55

(III) Illegality of the delegation of powers resulting from Decision No 14/55

(a) Did Decision No 14/55 grant a delegation of powers to the Brussels agencies':

(b) Details of the application of Decision No 14/55

(c) Extent of the delegation of powers

Costs

I —. Facts and procedure

II —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

(a). As regards admissibility, the High Authority first raises an objection of inadmissibility resulting from the fact that Meroni was alleged to have acquiesced in the decisions of the Brussels agencies. Such acquiescence resulted from the letter sent by the applicant on 13 April 1956.

(b). As regards the submission of infringement of procedural requirements and failure to state reasons: Grouping these two complaints under the same heading, the applicant argues that the duty to state reasons is disregarded when there is no statement of the grounds on which a conviction is based and when, as regards an order to pay, no indication is given of the factual and accounting data on which the order to pay is based.

(c). As regards the submission of manifest failure to observe the provisions of the Treaty and in particular Article 47, the applicant is of the opinion that the High Authority has infringed Article 47 in that it did not inform the applicant exactly and within due time of the precise equalization differential that it was then required to pay to the Joint Bureau.

(d). As regards the submission of misuse of powers, the applicant asserts that the assent of the Council of Ministers was accompanied by six precise recommendations, at least three of which were not put into effect. Thus the objectives of Decision No 14/55 were not attained and this failure resulted from a misuse of powers committed by the organizations entrusted with the task of putting the equalization system into effect. As against this submission, the defendant puts forward the following three arguments:

A —. Admissibility

1. The application has been lodged in compliance with the prescribed formalities, and its regularity in that regard has not been contested and does not give rise to any objection on the part of the Court.

2. In its application against the decision of the High Authority dated 24 October 1956, being an enforceable decision within the meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty, the applicant argues that Decision No 14/55 of 26 March 1955 establishing a financial arrangment for ensuring a regular supply of ferrous scrap for the Common Market involves a manifest failure to observe the provisions of the Treaty and is vitiated by misuse of powers.

3. The defendant has contested the admisibility of the application for the annulment of the decision of the High Authority, dated 24 October 1956, being a decision enforceable against the applicant within the meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty, on the ground that the applicant, by its letter of 13 April 1956, gave its consent in advance to the individual decision of 24 October 1956.

B —. Substance

(a). did not inform it of the objective data on which the Italian undertakings were assessed, in manifest contradiction with Article 47 of the Treaty, which provides that the High Authority shall publish such data as could be useful to governments or to any other parties concerned;

(b). only sent provisional accounts to the interested parties after 18 months and only applied to them equalization bonuses … which were also provisional.

(I). Insufficient information

(II). The provisional nature of the notices to pay addressed to the applicant

(I). Inaccuracy of the calculations made by the Brussels agencies

(II). Infringement of the recommendations which the Council of Ministers allegedly appended to its unanimous assent in respect of Decision No 14/55

(III). Illegality of the delegation of powers resulting from Decision No 14/55

(a). Did Decision No 14/55 grant a delegation of powers to the Brussels agencies':

(b). Details of the application of Decision No 14/55

(c). Extent of the delegation of powers

(a). the tonnages of scrap imported from third countries or scrap treated as such which may be entitled to equalization;

(b). the conditions to which the entitlement to equalization subsidy is subject…;

(c). the maximum import price;

(d). the equalization price, which may be fixed either for the date of order or for the date of delivery;

(e). the criteria for calculating economy in scrap due to an increased use of pigiron;

(f). the amount of the bonus to be granted in regard to these economies.

Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the parties; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to Articles 3, 5, 15, 17, 33, 36, 47, 53, 80 and 92.of the Treaty; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court and to Rules of the Court concerning costs; Having regard to Decisions Nos 22/54 of 26 March 1954 and 14/55 of 26 March 1955 of the High Authority which establish a financial arrangement for ferrous scrap imported from third countries, THE COURT hereby:

1 Declares that the application is admissible;

2 Annuls the Decision of the High Authority of 24 October 1956, notified to the applicant by post on 14 November 1956, according to which the applicant is required to pay to the Imported Ferrous Scrap Equalization Fund, 36, Rue Ravenstein, Brussels, the sum of Lit 23174181 (twenty-three million, one hundred and seventy-four thousand, one hundred and eight-one), the said decision being an enforceable decision within the meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty;