JUDGMENT OF 16.12.1960 — JOINED CASES 41, AND 50/59 HAMBORNER BERGBAU v HIGH AUTHORITY
In Joined Cases
THE COURT composed of: A. M. Donner, President, Ch. L. Hammes and N. Catalano, Presidents of Chambers, O. Riese and L. Delvaux, Judges, Advocate-General: K. Roemer Registrar: A. Van Houtte
gives the following
JUDGMENT
Issues of fact and law
I — Statement of the facts
II — Conclusions of the parties
III — Submissions and arguments of the parties
Application 41/59
1. Admissibility of the application
2. Objection of illegality
3. The substance of the case
A. The submissions of infringement of the Treaty and of lack of competence
B. The submission concerning misuse of powers
4. Behaviour tending to establish the wrongful act or omission rendering the Community liable
5. Evidence
Application No 50/59
1. Admissibility of the application
2. Substance
IV — Procedure
Grounds of judgment
Case 41/59
Application No 50/59
Costs
I —. Statement of the facts
II —. Conclusions of the parties
1. Annul the decision notified to the applicants on 27 July 1959 by the defendant's letter of 24 July 1959;
2. Declare that the contested decision involves a wrongful act or omission rendering the Community liable;
3. Order the defendant to bear the costs.
1. Annul the High Authority's implied decision of refusal to be inferred from its silence concerning the applicant's letter of 6 August 1959;
2. Declare that the contested decision involves a wrongful act or omission rendering the Community liable;
3. Order the defendant to bear the costs.
III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties
1. Admissibility of the application
2. Objection of illegality
3. The substance of the case
A. The submissions of infringement of the Treaty and of lack of competence
(a). The so-called guarantee fund does not comply with the requirements of Article 51 (3). This fund has increased to its present amount of US $ 100000000 and has in practice been financed by the Community undertakings as a whole whilst Article 51 (3) of the Treaty makes clear that it is those undertakings which require a loan and generally they alone which must finance such an overdraft reserve.
(b). The special reserve, which on 1 January 1959 amounted to more than US $ 22000000, is used to grant loans for second and third construction programmes for workers' housing. The special reserve was formed by transferring the net revenue from the interest from on sight deposits (US $ 18000000), from the interest on loans (US $ 250000) and fines and surcharges for delay (US $ 78000).
(c). The High Authority has transferred a further US $ 500000 to an account entitled Estimate for the Expenses of Servicing Loans. The guarantee fund already covers any divergences which may occur between the re-payment of loans granted to undertakings and the High Authority's liabilities regarding loans. The applicants dispute that a specific provision is still necessary for servicing loans.
B. The submission concerning misuse of powers
4. Behaviour tending to establish the wrongful act or omission rendering the Community liable
5. Evidence
1. Admissibility of the application
2. Substance
IV —. Procedure
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 15, 33, 34, 35, 36, 49 and 50 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 ot Justice of the European Communities, THE COURT hereby:
1 In Case No 41/59
2 In Case No 50/59
3 Orders the applicants to bear the costs of the proceedings.
1 Since the applicants do not know the exact amount of the revenue collected by the High Authority in surcharges, they have asked the Court to request the High Authority to state this. In its statement of defence the defendant maintained that up to 30 June 1959 the total surcharges collected by it amounted to 5038 units of account.