JUDGMENT OF 17.7. 1959 — JOINED CASES 36 TO 38, 40 AND 41/58 SIMET v HIGH AUTHORITY
In Joined Cases,
THE COURT composed of: A. M. Donner, President, O. Riese and J. Rueff (Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, L. Delvaux, Ch. L. Hammes, R. Rossi and N. Catalano, Judges, Advocate-General: K. Roemer Registrar: A. Van Houtte
gives the following
JUDGMENT
Issues of fact and of law
I — History and subject-matter of the dispute
A. Origins to the judgments in Cases 9/56 and 10/56
B. From the judgments in Cases 9/56 and 10/56 to Applications Nos 36, 37, 38, 40 and 41/58.
II — Procedure
III — Submissions and arguments of the parties
A — Admissibility
(a) Were Applications Nos 40 and 41/58 lodged within due time?
(b) May the applicants be heard to raise the four grounds for annulment described in Article 33 of the Treaty?
B — Substance
(a) Misuse of powers
1. Arguments of the applicants
2. Arguments of the defendant
(b) Infringement of the Treaty
(c) Failure to state reasons — retroactive effect
(d) Infringement of an essential procedural requirement
Grounds of judgment
A — Admissibility
1. Were the applications lodged within the period prescribed by the Treaty and by the Rules of Procedure?
2. Is Decision No 13/58 general or individual in character?
3. Are Applications Nos 36/58, 37/58 and 38/58 against General Decision No 13/58 admissible?
B — Substance
Does Decision No 13/58 involve a misuse of powers?
C — Costs
I —. History and subject-matter of the dispute
A. Origins to the judgments in Cases 9/56 and 10/56
B. From the judgments in Cases 9/56 and 10/56 to Applications Nos 36, 37, 38, 40 and 41/58.
II —. Procedure
(a). Declare the present application admissible;
(b). Annul Decision No 13/58, deliberated upon and adopted by the High Authority during its meeting on 24 July 1958 and published in the Journal Officiel (first year No 10) of 30 July 1958, on the management of the financial arrangements instituted by Decisions Nos 22/54, 14/55, 26/55, 3/56 and 2/57;
(c). Order the defendant to bear the costs.
III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties
A —. Admissibility
(a). Were Applications Nos 40 and 41/58 lodged within due time?
(b). May the applicants be heard to raise the four grounds for annulment described in Article 33 of the Treaty?
1. The High Authority points out that:
2. The applicants defend six principal points:
3. The High Authority rejects all these arguments:
B —. Substance
(a). Misuse of powers
1. Arguments of the applicants
2. Arguments of the defendant
(b). Infringement of the Treaty
(i). it again is silent, in disregard of Articles 5 and 47 of the Treaty, as to the reasons for and the details of its action as regards equalization;
(ii). it reiterates methods of valuation and of assessment lacking any legal basis according to the judgments in Cases 9/56 and 10/56;
(iii). there is reserved therein the power to confirm the deliberations and decisions of the Brussels agencies which the Court has so severely condemned in its judgments of 13 June 1958.
(i). The annulment only affected individual decisions. As for the general decision, the Court did no more than state that it was illegal.
(ii). Decision No 13/58 did not:
(iii). The applicants have not properly understood Decision No 13/58.
(c). Failure to state reasons — retroactive effect
(d). Infringement of an essential procedural requirement
A —. Admissibility
1. Were the applications lodged within the period prescribed by the Treaty and by the Rules of Procedure?
2. Is Decision No 13/58 general or individual in character?
3. Are Applications Nos 36/58, 37/58 and 38/58 against General Decision No 13/58 admissible?
B —. Substance
C —. Costs
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 3, 5, 8, 15, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 47 of the Treaty; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Coal and Steel Community; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Coal and Steel Community and to the rules of the said Court on costs; Having regard to Decision No 13/58 of the High Authority of 24 July 1958, THE COURT hereby
1 Declares that the applications of the undertakings Fer. Ro (Ferriere Rossi), an undertaking trading as an individual, Magliano Alpi (Cuneo) (40/58) and Acciaierie San Michele SpA, Turin (41/58), for the annulment of Decision No 13/58 of 24 July 1958, published in the Journal Officiel of 30 July 1958, are inadmissible.
2 Dismisses the applications of the undertakings Società Industriale Metallurgica di Napoli (Simet), SpA, Naples (36/58), Meroni & C, Industrie Metallurgiche, a limited partnership, Erba (37/58), and Meroni & C, Industrie Metallurgiche, SpA, Milan (38/58), for the annulment of the abovementioned decision as unfounded.
3 Orders the applicant to bear the costs.