JUDGMENT OF 13.7.1961 — JOINED CASES 14, 16, 17, 20, 24, 26, AND 27/60 AND 1/61 MERONI v HIGH AUTHORITY

In Joined Cases 14, 16, 17, 20, 26 and 27/60 and 1/61

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

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I— Conclusions of the parties

II— Submissions and arguments of the parties

III— Procedure

Law

I — The legal foundation of the applications and the subject-matter of the examination by the Court

II — On the existence of injury

III — The wrongful act or omission

IV — Whether the actions are time-barred and whether the injury had the nature of special damage

V- Costs

I—. Conclusions of the parties

1. Rule that the present application is admissible, declare that the High Authority is liable for a wrongful act or omission in that the latter did not notify the applicant in good time of the amount, which moreover was only provisional, of the equalization contribution in respect of ferrous scrap for the period from 1 April 1954 to 31 March 1959 with the result that the applicant was forced to publish its price-list and conditions of sale without being in any way able to take into account the rate at which it would later be charged;

2. Cause to be established by an expert to be appointed by the Court of its own motion, the damage suffered by the applicant as a result of having been compelled to sell its iron and steel production without having been able to pass on to the purchasers the amount of the equalization contribution and the exact amount which will have to be credited to the applicant's equalization account for the period from 1 April 1954 to 31 March 1959;

3. Order the High Authority to pay the costs.

1. Dismiss all the claims contained in the applications submitted by the applicant undertakings;

2. Order the applicant undertakings to pay the costs.

II—. Submissions and arguments of the parties

1. Recall the case-law of the Court relating to the compulsory publication of price-lists and conditions of sale as well as the aims and scope of this publicity (Judgment in Case 1/54).

2. Give an account of the history and organization of the equalization scheme, the inadequacy whereof the Court acknowledged in its judgments in the Meroni Cases (Cases 9/56 and 10/56).

3. Emphasize that during those proceedings the applicants Meroni & Co. had already criticized the delay in notifying the persons concerned of the actual amount of the sums due by way of equalization.

4. Maintain that when, following the said Meroni judgments, the High Authority reviewed the structure of the equalization machinery, it should have worked out a system designed to reconcile the need, on the one hand, for prior and accurate publication of prices by undertakings and, on the other hand, for accurate notification in good time of the amounts payable by way of equalization. It was all the more imperative to take these factors into consideration as the rate of equalization has continued to increase and in a way which the undertakings could not have foreseen, namely from $0.75 to $ 13 per metric ton, an increase of 1600 %.

III—. Procedure

I —. The legal foundation of the applications and the subject-matter of the examination by the Court

II —. On the existence of injury

III —. The wrongful act or omission

1. The delay in effecting the first notifications of the rate applicable to the different accounting periods.

2. The fact that frequently these rates have been altered at a later date and sometimes successively without the final rate having been fixed to this day.

1. So far as the first objection is concerned the defendant has rightly pointed out that the system of equalization in the form given to it by the general decisions of the High Authority of necessity implies calculations a posteriori. In fact the rate of equalization could only be fixed after taking into account a series of factors and especially the respective prices and total quantities of imported scrap and scrap purchased within the Community. In order to know what these factors were the High Authority depended primarily on the diligence shown by the undertakings subject to the scheme in discharging their duty to make the necessary declarations. It is well known that some undertakings did not always show the desired diligence. The applicants themselves have not however alleged that the administration, by failing to remind those subject to it of their duties as energetically as it should have done, has been negligent.

2. So far as the various later corrections are concerned it is advisable to bear in mind that, for the reasons given above, the decisions whereby these corrections were prescribed and the decisions of which these corrections were, directly or indirectly, the inevitable consequence, do not come within the province of review by the Court in the context of the present proceedings. Therefore the Court must merely consider whether these modifications were caused by circumstances in no way connected with the legal structure of the equalization scheme or by a deficient organization of the departments or work of the administration.

IV —. Whether the actions are time-barred and whether the injury had the nature of special damage

V-. Costs

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 33, 34, 40, 50, 51, 53, 60 and 80 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, especially Article 69; THE COURT hereby:

1 Dismisses the applications;

2 Orders the applicants to pay the costs.