JUDGMENT OF 26. 6. 1958 AUBERT ET DUVAL v HIGH AUTHORITY ECSC

In Case 10/57

THE COURT composed of: M. Pilotti, President, A. van Kleffens and L. Delvaux, Presidents of Chambers, P. J. S. Serrarens, O. Riese, J. Rueff and 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 — Admissibility

B — Substance

First complaint: The establishment of a system of priorities and of allocation, constituting misuse of powers with regard to Articles 53 (b), 59 and Annex II.

Second complaint: Misuse of powers with regard to Article 3 (b) of the Treaty, because Articles 8 and 9 of the contested decision do not differentiate between consumers in the Common Market who are not comparably placed.

Third complaint: Misuse of powers in that through discriminatory measures the High Authority penalizes the expansion of certain undertakings and confers upon itself wide powers concerning the control of investments.

Fourth complaint: Misuse of powers in relation to Article 3 (d) and (g), in that the High Authority is pursuing objectives the effect of which is to prevent the improvement of production and technical progress.

Fifth complaint: Misuse of powers in that the objectives of the contested decision are manifestly contrary to those which the Community is bound to pursue under Articles 2 and 3 (e) of the Treaty and of Article 29 of the Convention on the Transitional Provisions, concerning the continuity of employment of workers and the improvement of working conditions and the standard of living.

Sixth complaint: Under the guise of pursuing an objective in the general interest the High Authority, through the contested provisions of Decision No 2/57, deliberately pursued an objective of its own with regard to the applicant.

4. Procedure

Law

A — Admissibility

B — Substance

1. The complaint of misuse of powers with regard to Article 3 (b), (d) and (g) of the Treaty, that is to say, that Articles 8 and 9 of the contested decision do not differentiate between consumers in the Common Market who are not comparably placed and that the High Authority is pursuing objectives the effect of which is to prevent the improvement of production and technical progress

2. The complaint of misuse of powers with regard to Article 53 (b), Article 59 and Annex II to the Treaty, namely that the High Authority has established a system of priorities and of allocation whilst refraining from observing the formalities prescribed in Article 59 and Annex II

3. The complaint of misuse of powers with regard to Article 54 of the Treaty, namely that the High Authority penalizes through discriminatory measures the expansion of certain undertakings and confers upon itself wide powers concerning the control of investments

4. The complaint of misuse of powers with regard to Articles 2 and 3 (e) of the Treaty and of Paragraph 29 of the Convention on the Transitional Provisions, namely that the objectives of the contested decision are manifestly contrary to those which the Community is bound to pursue concerning continuity of employment for workers and the improvement of working conditions and the standard of living

5. The complaint of misuse of powers in that, through the provisions of Decision No 2/57, the High Authority deliberately pursued an objective of its own with regard to the applicant

Costs