JUDGMENT OF 12. 2. 1960 — JOINED CASES 15 AND 29/59 KNUTANGE v HIGH AUTHORITY

In Joined Cases 15 and 29/59

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

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Conclusions of the parties

A — In the main proceedings

B — In the interlocutory proceedings concerning Case 15/59

II — Facts

III — Submissions of the parties

A — Admissibility

B — Substance

Grounds of judgment

I — Admissibility

1. Admissibility of Case 15/59

2. Admissibility of Application 29/59

II — Substance

III — Costs

I —. Conclusions of the parties

A —. In the main proceedings

B —. In the interlocutory proceedings concerning Case 15/59

II —. Facts

(1). In November 1957 the applicant had to stop a blast-furnace which needed certain repairs and because of this was out of action for six months. During the three-month period from February to April 1958, the applicant, which usually does not buy any ferrous scrap as its own resources are sufficient to cover its needs and which even sells ferrous scrap to other undertakings, had to buy 4523 metric tons of this material. According to the provisions of Decision No 2/57 of the High Authority, the result was that the applicant was required to pay, in addition to the basic contribution, the contribution at the additional rate for a tonnage of 1763 metric tons representing the excess of its consumption of bought scrap during its reference period.

(2). In a pleading lodged on 23 April 1959, the defendant entered an objection of inadmissibility as regards case 15/59. By Order of 13 June 1959, the Court, noting that Cases 15/59 and 29/59 were obviously interconnected and that it would in any event have to pass judgment on the legality of one or the other of the contested decisions, de cided to join that preliminary objection to the substance.

(3). By order of the same date, the Court, after hearing the observations of the parties, noting that the two cases concerned a dispute on the same question and that the submissions made in both cases were practically identical, decided to join the two cases for the purposes of the written and oral procedures.

III —. Submissions of the parties

A —. Admissibility

(a). As regards Case 15/59, the defendant, in a pleading lodged on 23 April 1959, entered an objection of inadmissibility, based on Article 69 of the former or Article 91 of the present Rules of Procedure, alleging that at the date when the application was lodged the High Authority had not yet taken any decision on the request by the applicant undertaking to be exonerated. The applicant replied in a pleading lodged at the registry on 27 May 1959, in which it emphasized that the terms of the contested letter clearly showed that it was in the nature of a decision.

(b). No objection of inadmissibility concerning the application in Case 29/59 has been entered.

B —. Substance

(a). Taking into account the purpose of the decision — which is allegedly contained in the recital which states that undertakings consuming ferrous scrap shall be required to pay, in addition to the contributions calculated heretofore, an additional contribution payable periodically in so far as their consumption of ferrous scrap exceeds their consumption during a reference period — , the limit above which additional contributions are applicable ought to be taken as the effective consumption during the reference period, whereas, according to the system as introduced, even undertakings whose average consumption of ferrous scrap has remained unchanged, or is less than the average consumption over the reference period, can be subjected to the additional contribution.

(b). From this premise, the applicant deduces that the accounting period should have been of the same length as the reference period. For if it be necessary, as the High Authority asserts, to calculate an average consumption over a reference period of six months in order to prevent undertakings from taking advantage of a period of exceptional consumption in the past, one should also recognize the necessity of calculating an average consumption over an accounting period of six months so as to avoid penalizing undertakings for a short period of exceptional consumption.

(a). in Article 4 that, in calculation the consumption over the accounting period, the sales of ferrous scrap shall be deducted, whereas no analogous deduction need be made for the reference period;

(b). in Article 7 that increases in stocks of ferrous scrap during the accounting period need not be taken into account in calculating the chargeable consumption.

I —. Admissibility

1. Admissibility of Case 15/59

2. Admissibility of Application 29/59

II —. Substance

III —. Costs

On those grounds, Upon reading the pleadings, Upon hearing the parties; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 33, 53 and 65 of the ECSC Treaty; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure; THE COURT hereby:

1 Dismisses the applications brought by the applicant as unfounded;

2 Orders the defendant to bear the costs of Case 15/59;

3 Orders the applicant to bear the costs of Case 29/59.