JUDGMENT OF 17. 7. 1959 — CASE 21/58 CARLSWERK v HIGH AUTHORITY

In Case 21/58

THE COURT composed of: A. M. Donner, President, O. Reise, President of Chamber, L. Delvaux (Rapporteur), Ch. L. Hammes and N. Catalano, Judges, Advocate-General: M. Lagrange Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the folowing

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Conclusions of the parties

II— Statement of the facts

III — Submissions and arguments of the parties

1. Admissibility

2. The substance of the case

First submission: lack of competence

Second submission: infringement of an essential procedural requirement

Third submission: infringement of the Treaty or of rules of law relating to its application

Fourth submission: misuse of powers

IV — Procedure

Grounds of judgment

Admissibility

Costs

I —. Conclusions of the parties

1. Annul the letter sent by the defendant on 18 December 1957 to the OCCF, and published in the Journal Officiel of 1 February 1958, p. 45 et seq., in so far as that letter is to be considered as a decision within the meaning of Articles 14 and 15 of the ECSC Treaty;

2. Order the defendant to pay the costs.

1. Take formal note that all the documents and communications relating to this case shall be sent to the High Authority, 2 place de Metz, Luxembourg;

2. Dismiss the application as unfounded;

3. Order the applicants to pay the costs.

II—. Statement of the facts

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

1. Admissibility

2. The substance of the case

1. According to those decisions, only bought scrap is assessable.

2. Those decisions designate as bearing the contribution all undertakings within the meaning of Article 80 of the Treaty. Undertakings under that article are undertakings constituting a whole and not the different operational departments, even if they are autonomous in law. The contested letter abandons the criterion of the undertaking for that of the company name.

3. According to the aforementioned decisions, only consumers who buy scrap on the market can benefit from equalization. The applicant consumers, however, cannot benefit from equalization because they receive scrap belonging to the undertaking forming a whole at notional prices which are independent of the market. It is contrary to the very nature of equalization to include in it consumers who cannot benefit from it.

4. By retroactively bringing in for equalization scrap which has not been bought, the letter complained of goes against the general principle of law according to which administrative decisions should not be applied retroactively. And the general principles of law must be included in the rules relating to the application of the Treaty.

5. In order to define the concept of bought scrap, the letter complained of refers to the criterion of the legal person. It thus infringes Articles 3(b) and 4(b) of the Treaty, which forbid discriminations, because, without sufficient grounds, it treats essentially identical situations in a different way.

6. Under the provisions of German tax law, a group of industrial works which are autonomous in civil law but which are affiliated in fact are regarded by virtue of that affiliation as constituting a single economic unit. These fiscal principles must be applied in the same way to the equalization contribution. Moreover, the High Authority admitted this in the case of Hoogovens, whose movements of scrap have been recognized as own production because the Netherlands Government regards the two companies Hoogovens and Breedband, which are separate in law, as a single economic unit from the fiscal point of view.

1. By neglecting the objective of non-discrimination laid down by Articles 3(b) and 4(b) of the Treaty;

2. By using its powers of defining conceps contained in the decisions imposing the contribution upon bought scrap in order to bring into the equalization system additional tonnages of scrap in respect of which the aforesaid decisions do not provide for any equalization.

IV —. Procedure

Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the parties; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to Articles 14, 15, 33 and 80 of the Treaty establishing the ECSC; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the ECSC; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the ECSC, THE COURT hereby: