ACCIAIERIA Dl BRESCIA v HIGH AUTHORITY JUDGMENT OF 14. 4. I960 -CASE 31/59

THE COURT composed of: A. M. Donner, President, L. Delvaux, President of Chamber, O. Riese, Ch. L. Hammes (Rapporteur) and N. Catalano, Judges, Advocate-General: K. Roemer 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

A — Infringement of the Treaty

(1) The part of the decision concerning information

(2) The part of the decision concerning the checks

(3) The decision considered as a whole

B — Infringement of essential procedural requirements

(1) The part of the decision concerning the information

(2) The part of the decision concerning the checks

(3) The decision considered as a whole

C — Misuse of powers

IV — Procedure

Grounds of judgment

I — Procedure

II — Substance of the case

A — The infringement of the Treaty

B — The infringement of essential procedural requirements

C — Misuse of powers

Costs

I —. Facts

II —. Conclusions of the parties

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

A —. Infringement of the Treaty

(1). The part of the decision concerning information

(2). The part of the decision concerning the checks

(3). The decision considered as a whole

B —. Infringement of essential procedural requirements

(1). The part of the decision concerning the information

(2). The part of the decision concerning the checks

(3). The decision considered as a whole

C —. Misuse of powers

IV —. Procedure

I —. Procedure

II —. Substance of the case

A —. The infringement of the Treaty

1. The applicant claims, first, that the decision is absolutely imprecise and without definite subject-matter, in that neither the recitals in the preamble thereto nor the operative part indicate the information it is asked to provide or explain why it is necessary in this particular case and that this constitutes an infringement of the Treaty.

2. Secondly, more generally, the applicant puts forward the same ground of complaint in order to deduce from the failure to satisfy the conditions to which any measure of investigation is subject under the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Treaty, that is, a preliminary decision setting out the reasons why a request for information is necessary and specifying and defining the information required, that there has been an infringement of the Treaty. Such information, it claims, may only subsequently be checked and, if necessary, the penalties referred to under the third paragraph of the same article may be imposed if it is refused or inaccurate.

3. The second of these grounds of complaint must be examined first.

4. After this definition of the legal basis for the decision in question it is appropriate to examine the first ground of complaint, in which the applicant claims that the decision is imprecise and lacks definite subject-matter since the first paragraph of Article 47 requires the High Authority to give a prior and precise indication of the facts to which the checks apply and not only of the purpose for which they are intended.

5. As regards the submission that the High Authority violated the Treaty and exceeded its powers by seeking to have checks made on the applicant's entire iron and steel and engineering production, thereby encroaching on an area not covered by the provisions of the ECSC Treaty, it must be noted that the exercise of the High Authority's right to have checks made must in principle be confined to the coal and steel production of the undertakings.

B —. The infringement of essential procedural requirements

1. Contrary to the complaint made by the applicant and although the decision is imperfectly formulated as regards the need for the request for information, sufficient reasons are given for the decision, since the mere reference to the performance of its tasks by the High Authority is supplemented by the statement of the purposes for which the information was intended.

2. For the same reasons it cannot be held that insufficient reasons were given for the checks ordered to be carried out.

3. The arguments put forward in support of the complaint that the statement of reasons for the decision is vitiated on grounds of error and inappropriateness and therefore infringes essentia! procedural requirements thus amount to the complaint of infringement of the Treaty which has already been dismissed above and there is no longer any need to consider them again in this new form.

C —. Misuse of powers

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 5, 15,33,46,47,64,82 and 86 of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community 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 Communities, THE COURT hereby:

1 Dimisses the application as unfounded;

2 Orders the applicant to pay the costs of the action, including those of the application for the adoption of interim measures.