JUDGMENT OF 17. 12. 1959 — CASE 14/59 PONT-À-MOUSSON v HIGH AUTHORITY

In Case 14/59

THE COURT composed of: A. M. Donner, President, L. Delvaux and R. Rossi, Presidents of Chambers, O. Riese (Rapporteur), J. Rueff, Ch. L. Hammes and N. Catalano, Judges Advocate General: M. Lagrange Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Facts

II — Conclusions of the parties

III — Submissions and arguments of the parties

1. Admissibility

2. The substance

A — Arguments put forward by the applicant

1. Is molten pig iron an ECSC product?

2. Does the applicant undertaking fall outside the jurisdiction of the ECSC by reason of the technical and economic structure of its works?

(a) The situation of a foundry engaged in pre-melt, such as the factory at Pont-a-Mousson, must be compared rather to that of an independent steel foundry than to that of an integrated steel foundry.

(b) Is the fact that the applicant prepares its molten pig iron in blast furnaces — instead of utilizing the usual cupola furnaces — sufficient to classify the product as an iron and steel product?

(c) Comparison between foundries engaged in pre-melt and those engaged in melt [fonderies de premiere et de deuxième fusion]

B — Arguments put forward by the defendant

2 (a) (The position of foundries engaged in pre-melt in the system of Annex I)

2 (b) (Classification of the products in question as iron and steel products)

2 (c) (Comparison between foundries engaged in pre-melt and those engaged in melt)

A — The applicant's arguments

1. General arguments

2. Specific arguments

(a) Competition of foundries engaged in melt

(b) Competition from manufacturers of tubes of asbestos cement, concrete and plastic

(c) Competition from steel foundries

B — The defendant's arguments

2 (a) (Competition from foundries engaged in melt)

2 (b) (Competition from manufacturers of tubes of asbestos cement etc.)

2 (c) (Competition from steel foundries)

IV — Procedure

Grounds of judgment

Admissibility

Substance

First complaint: infringement of Articles 53, 80 and 81 and also of Annexes I and II to the ECSC Treaty.

Second complaint: infringement of Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Treaty and of the general principles of Community law.

1. The complaints as to discrimination and infringement of the right of all consumers to equal access to sources of production

2. The complaint as to the adverse effect on competition

3. The complaint as to a special charge

Costs

1 Translator's note: The French for this expression is fontes de fonderie brutes, literally crude foundry pig iron.