JUDGMENT OF 21. 6. 1958 — CASE 8/57 ACIÉRIES BELGES v HIGH AUTHORITY
In Case 8/57
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: M. Lagrange Registrar: A. Van Houtte
gives the following
JUDGMENT
Issues of fact
1. Facts
2. Conclusions of the parties
3. Submissions and arguments of the parties
A — The admissibility of the application
1. Whether it is possible for a misuse of powers to have been committed affecting the applicant association itself
2. Whether the submissions constitute complaints of misuse of powers
B — Substance
Law
A — Admissibility
B — Substance
1. The complaint of misuse of powers with regard to Article 53 (b) and Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Treaty, that is to say that the objectives pursued by the High Authority by means of financial arrangements under Article 53 are contrary to the objectives defined by Articles 3 and 4 of the Treaty.
2. The complaint of misuse of powers based on the contradiction between the various objectives stated in Decision No 2/57 on the one hand and between the objectives stated and the objectives actually pursued on the other
3. The complaint of misuse of powers with regard to Article 53 (b), Article 59 and Annex II to the Treaty, namely that, since the defendant has effected the allocation of ferrous scrap in the guise of a, financial arrangement whilst refraining from observing the provisions of Article 59, it has committed a misuse of powers
4. The complaint of misuse of powers with regard to Article 53 (b) and Articles 2, 3, 4, 46 and 54 of the Treaty, namely that the High Authority cannot have recourse to financial arrangements under Article 53 for the purpose of prohibiting certain new plant or of favouring certain investments, whilst disregarding the provisons of Article 54
Costs
1. Facts
2. Conclusions of the parties
3. Submissions and arguments of the parties
A —. The admissibility of the application
1. Whether it is possible for a misuse of powers to have been committed affecting the applicant association itself
2. Whether the submissions constitute complaints of misuse of powers
(a). Three complaints of misuse of powers:
(b). Three complaints of infringement of the Treaty:
B —. Substance
A —. Admissibility
B —. Substance
1. The complaint of misuse of powers with regard to Article 53 (b) and Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Treaty, that is to say that the objectives pursued by the High Authority by means of financial arrangements under Article 53 are contrary to the objectives defined by Articles 3 and 4 of the Treaty.
(a). Pursuant to Article 53 (b) of the Treaty the High Authority may, with the unanimous assent of the Council, itself make any financial arrangements which it recognizes to be necessary for the performance of the taks set out in Article 3. The exercise of the powers thus conferred upon the High Authority is subject to the conditions set out in Articles 2 to 5 concerning the establishment, administration and guidance of the Common Market.
(b). The purpose of the provisions contested in the present application was to make the contribution for the equalization of the prices of imported ferrous scrap progressively selective by increasing the rate applicable to the consumption of bought scrap above a given reference level and by graduating the charges thereby imposed in terms of a specific input coefficient for ferrous scrap in the installations and the manufacturing processes requiring scrap.
(c). Nevertheless consideration must be given to the question whether the measures taken are compatible with the rules in Article 3 (b), the beginning of subparagraph (d) and subparagraph (g) and the applicant alleges that the High Authority's adoption of the said measures constitutes serious disregard of these objectives. Pursuant to Article 3 (b) of the Treaty the institutions of the Community are required, within the limits of their respective powers, to ensure in the common interest that all comparably-placed consumers in the Common Market have equal access to the sources of production; this provision constitutes a necessary objective for the action of the High Authority in the exercise of the powers conferred upon it by the Treaty. Failure to observe the principle of the equality of treatment of consumers in the matter of economic rules, as that principle has been described above, may constitute misuse of powers affecting the persons or classes of persons deliberately sacrificed.
(d). Pursuant to Article 3 (d) and (g) of the Treaty the institutions of the Community, and particularly the High Authority in exercising the powers conferred upon it by Article 53 (b), are required to ensure the maintenance of conditions which will encourage undertakings to expand and improve their production potential and promote the orderly expansion and modernization of production and the improvement of quality. The High Authority refers to those legal objectives at the beginning of the disputed decision, the stated aim of which is to ensure regular supplies to the market in ferrous scrap and to encourage undertakings to save ferrous scrap without, however, making it more difficult to increase output capacity.
(e). Furthermore the objectives laid down in Article 3 of the Treaty must be appraised as a whole and pursued exclusively in the common interest. The concept of the common interest referred to in Article 3, far from being restricted to the sum of the individual interests of coal and steel undertakings subject to the jurisdiction of the Community, considerably exceeds the scope of such interests and is defined in relation to the general aims clearly laid down in Article 2.
(f). The indirect means of action in relation to production prescribed in Article 57 are to be distinguished from the direct influence referred to in the third subparagraph of the second paragraph of Article 5 not by the aims pursued but by the methods appropriate to attain them. Indirect means of action, by affecting, especially as a result of the financial arrangements under Article 53, certain of the factors which play a part in forming prices, create conditions which encourage undertakings freely and willingly to choose the behaviour desired by the High Authority for the accomplishment of the tasks with which it is charged under the Treaty. On the other hand direct influence, such as the allocation of resources for which provision is made in Article 59, is not concerned with how producers would behave if they acted freely but directly prescribes, on pain of fines, as is stated in Article 59 (7), the behaviour which the High Authority considers necessary with regard to the situation with which the Treaty requires it to cope.
2. The complaint of misuse of powers based on the contradiction between the various objectives stated in Decision No 2/57 on the one hand and between the objectives stated and the objectives actually pursued on the other
3. The complaint of misuse of powers with regard to Article 53 (b), Article 59 and Annex II to the Treaty, namely that, since the defendant has effected the allocation of ferrous scrap in the guise of a, financial arrangement whilst refraining from observing the provisions of Article 59, it has committed a misuse of powers
4. The complaint of misuse of powers with regard to Article 53 (b) and Articles 2, 3, 4, 46 and 54 of the Treaty, namely that the High Authority cannot have recourse to financial arrangements under Article 53 for the purpose of prohibiting certain new plant or of favouring certain investments, whilst disregarding the provisons of Article 54
Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the parties; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 33, 46, 47, 48, 53, 54, 57, 58, 59, 65 and 80 of the Treaty and Annex II thereto; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice and the rules of the Court on costs, THE COURT hereby: