JUDGMENT OF 26. 6. 1958 — CASE 12/57 SIDÉRURGIE DU CENTRE-MIDI v HIGH AUTHORITY ECSC

In Case 12/57

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

I. Facts

II — Conclusions of the parties

III — Submissions and arguments of the parties

A. The admissibility of the application

1. Whether a misuse of powers has indeed been directed against the applicant association itself

2. Whether the submissions really constitute complaints of misuse of powers

B. Substance

First complaint: Misuse of powers with regard to the objectives of Article 3 of the Treaty.

Second complaint: The High Authority has pursued as its principal and clearly-specified objective the allocation of ferrous scrap.

Third complaint: As its second principal objective the High Authority sought to influence investments.

Fourth complaint: The High Authority imposed upon certain undertakings a special charge prohibited by Article 4 (c) of the Treaty.

Fifth complaint: The High Authority has established an unfair system for the undertakings and is guilty of discrimination in that it has accorded equal treatment to situations which are not comparable (Article 4 (b) of the Treaty).

Sixth complaint: The High Authority has, contrary to Article 65, adopted provisions which are more restrictive than is necessary for their purpose.

Seventh complaint: The contested decision produces acute and wide-spread social problems which must inevitably continue if this decision is implemented (Article 3 (e) of the Treaty).

IV — Procedure

Law

A — Admissibility

B — Substance

1. The complaint of misuse of powers with regard to Articles 3 and 53 of the Treaty, that is to say, that the contested provisions pursue objectives which are contrary to the objectives in Articles 3 and 53

2. The complaint of misuse of powers in that the contested provisions are intended to effect an allocation

3. The complaint of misuse of powers in that the contested provisions are intended to prohibit certain investments

4. The cow plaint of misuse of powers with regard to Article 4(c) of the Treaty in that the High Authority has imposed upon certain undertakings a special charge which is prohibited by the said article

5. The complaint of misuse of powers with regard to Article 4 (b) of the Treaty in that the High Authority has established an unfair system for the undertakings since refunds are not available on the same terms to every undertaking and in respect of all kinds of plant

6. The complaint of misuse of powers with regard to Article 65 of the Treaty in that by establishing the system amounting almost to a prohibition with regard to plant and manufacturing processes put into operation after 31 January 1958 the High Authority enacted measures which were more restrictive than their purpose required

7. the complaint of misuse of powers with regard to Article 3 (e) of the Treaty in that the contested provisions give rise to acute and wide-spread social problems which must inevitably continue if the said provisions are applied

Costs