JUDGMENT OF 10. 5. 1960 — JOINED CASES 27 TO 29/58 HAUTS FOURNEAUX DE GIVORS v HIGH AUTHORITY

In Joined Cases 27 to 29/58

THE COURT composed of: A. M. Dormer, President, L. Delvaux and R. Rossi (Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, 0. Riese and Ch. L. Hammes, Judges Advocate-General: K. Roemer Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Conclusions of the parties

II — The facts

(1) Cases 27/58 and 28/58

(2) Case 29/58

III — Submissions and arguments of the parties

The substance of the case

The submission concerning the lack of competence of the High Authority for the purposes of Articles 1 and 10 of the Convention on the Transitional Provisions

The submission relating to the infringement of essential procedural requirements laid down in the first paragraph of Article 15 of the Treaty

The alternative submission relating to the infringement and misapplication at Article 4 (b) and the fourth paragraph of Article 70 of the Treaty and the seventh paragraph of Article 10 of the Convention on the Transitional Provisions.

The alternative submission based on the infringement of the general objectives laid down in Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty

Infringement of Article 3 (b)

Infringement of Article 3 (c)

Infringement of Article 3 (d) and (g)

IV — Procedure

Grounds of judgment

The substance of the case

The submission concerning the lack of competence of the High Authority for the purposes of Articles 1 and 10 of the Convention on the Transitional Provisions

The submission concerning the infringement of essential procedural requirements under the first paragraph of Article 15 of the Treaty

The alternative submission concerning the infringement of Article 4 (b) and the fourth paragraph of Article 70 of the Treaty and the seventh paragraph of Article 10 of the Convention on the Transitional Provisions

The alternative submission concerning the infringement of the general objectives laid down in Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty

Costs

I —. Conclusions of the parties

1. The applicants claim in the three joined cases that the Court should:

2. The defendant contends that the Court should:

II —. The facts

(1). Cases 27/58 and 28/58

(a). The abolition before 1 January 1959 of the rates and conditions laid down in Chapter 3, Paragraph I and Chapter 103, Paragraph I, as regards consignments from the western mines;

(b). The progressive abolition, between 1 July 1958 and 1 July 1965, of the rates and conditions laid down in Chapter 3, Paragraph I, as regards consignments from the mines in the Pyrenees, and, before 1 July 1961, of the rates and conditions laid down in Chapter 12, Paragraph I.

(2). Case 29/58

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

1. The applicants state first that the general principle of nondiscrimination laid down in Article 4 (b) of the Treaty is repeated and amplified in the first paragraph of Article 70. Under the latter provision, rates and conditions for the carriage of coal and steel must afford comparable price conditions to comparably placed consumers.

2. The applicants then state that under the seventh paragraph of Article 10 of the Convention and by reference to the fourth paragraph of Article 70 of the Treaty, authorization by the High Authority is required only with regard to internal rates and conditions established in the interest of one or more coal- or steel-producing undertakings.

IV —. Procedure

1. The applicants maintain that the powers of the High Authority under the Convention on the Transitional Provisions with regard to the examination of the rates and conditions referred to in the fourth paragraph of Article 70 of the Treaty which were in force when the High Authority was set up could be exercised only during the transitional period which ended at midnight on 9 February 1958. They allege that the contested decision, which conveys a refusal to approve those rates and conditions, was adopted on 12 February 1958, that is, the date on which it was notified to the Government of the French Republic, since the date of the notification of a measure is at the same time that on which it becomes valid.

2. The applicants then allege that by reason of the economic and social consequences which may follow from the abolition of the special internal rates and conditions, the interested parties are entitled to claim the grant of the aids provided for in Article 23 of the Convention on the Transitional Provisions.

1. The applicants maintain that the High Authority has contravened the fourth paragraph of Article 70 and Article 4 (b) of the Treaty and the seventh paragraph of Article 10 of the Convention by taking a decision to abolish Chapter 3, Paragraph IV and Chapter 11, Paragraph I of Tariff No 7 of the Societe Nationale des Chemins de Fer Français and Chapter 3, Paragraph I, within the context of its application to transport from the mines in the Pyrenees, and Chapter 12, Paragraph I, of Tariff No 13 of the Societe Nationale des Chemins de Fer Français, as being special internal rates and onditions applied in the interest of one or more coal- or steel-producing undertakings.

2. Under the first paragraph of Article 70 of the Treaty the discriminatory nature of special internal rates and conditions consists in the fact that they afford different price conditions to comparably placed consumers.

3. It appears from Article 4 of the Treaty that in Article 70 the intention of the authors of the Treaty was to eliminate distortions in the common market by the harmonization of transport rates and conditions and thus to ensure that the common market would function in accordance with the principles laid down by the Treaty.

4. Under the fourth paragraph of Article 70 of the Treaty special internal rates and conditions are those which are applied in the interest of one or more coal- and steel-producing undertakings.

5. However, the fourth paragraph of Article 70 enables the High Authority to agree to the application of special internal rates and conditions which appear to be compatible with the principles of the Treaty.

6. The tariffs in question afford reductions in price as compared with the rates and conditions of general application which are laid down in Chapter 1 of Tariffs Nos 7 and 13 of the Societe Nationale des Chemins de Fer Français and they therefore constitute special internal rates and conditions. They were introduced in order to counteract the structural difficulties experienced by the applicants with regard to their production conditions in comparison with competing undertakings.

7. The rates and conditions in question were in force when the High Authority was set up and therefore they come within the application of the seventh paragraph of Article 10 of the Convention. That article does not introduce any derogation from the rules laid down in Article 4 (b) and in the first and fourth paragraphs of Article 70 but merely places the High Authority under a duty, during the transitional period, to allow such time for the modification of protective rates and conditions in force at that date as may be necessary to avoid any serious economic disturbance.

1. The applicants allege that the contested decision contravened the second paragraph of Article 2 and Article 3 (c), (d) and (g) of the Treaty. In cases 27/58 and 29/58, they also allege that there has been an infringement of Article 3 (b).

2. Under the second paragraph of Article 2 of the Treaty The Community shall progressively bring about conditions which will of themselves ensure the most rational distribution of production at the highest possible level of productivity, while safeguarding continuity of employment and taking care not to provoke fundamental and persistent disturbances in the economies of Member States.

3. The applicant in Case 27/58 alleges that the contested decision contravenes Article 3 (b) in that the abolition ordered therein of Chapter 3, Paragraph I of Tariff No 13, considered in the context of its application to transport from the mines in the Pyrenees, and of Chapter 12, Paragraph I, would entail such an increase in transport costs that the applicant will no longer have access to the sources of production in conditions comparable to those of similar industries.

4. In the three cases the applicants maintain that the contested decision, by abolishing the rates and condition in question, thereby entailing a rise in production costs, jeopardizes the establishment of the lowest prices under the conditions laid down in Article 3 (c).

5. The applicants wrongly allege that the abolition of the rates and conditions in question, which involves an increase in the cost price, jeopardizes the attainment of the objectives laid down in Article 3 (d) and (g).

On those grounds, 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 2, 3, 4, 5, 15, 31, 33, 37, 53, 54, 62, 67, 70 and 80 of the ECSC Treaty and Articles 10 and 23 of the Convention on the Transitional Provisions; 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, especially Article 29 (3) and Article 60 (1), THE COURT hereby:

1 Dismisses the applications in Joined Cases 27, 28 and 29/58 as unfounded;

2 Orders the applicants to pay the costs.