JUDGMENT OF 13. 7. 1962 — JOINED CASES 17 AND 20/61 KLÖCKNER v HIGH AUTHORITY
In Joined Cases 17/61
THE COURT composed of: A. M. Donner, President, O. Riese (President of Chamber), L. Delvaux, Ch. L. Hammes and A. Trabucchi (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
1. In Case 17/61
2. In Case 20/61
II — Facts
III — Submissions and arguments of the parties
A — Admissibility
B — On the substance of the case
1. Infringement of the Treaty and of the rules of law relating to its implementation.
(a) As to the nature oj the Konzern as an undertaking in the opinion of the applicant Klöckner-Werke AC
(b) As to the nature of the parent company as an undertaking, in the opinion of the applicant Hoesch AG
(c) Arguments of the defendant
(d) The interpretation of the basic Decisions
(e) The complaint of discrimination
2. Misuse of powers
3. Infringement of the Treaty by the basic Decisions
4. Infringement of an essential procedural requirement and lack of competence
5. Ownership of the scrap
6. Costs
IV — Procedure
Grounds of judgment
Admissibility
On the substance of the case
I — Submission based on infringement of the Treaty or of the rules of law relating to its application
1. The concepts of undertaking and purchase for the purposes of the application of the equalization scheme for scrap
2. The concept of an undertaking and the attitude of the High Authority
3. On the question whether the disputed scrap can be considered as bought scrap
4. The complaint of discrimination
II — Submission of misuse of powers
III — Objections of illegality raised against the basic Decisions
IV — Costs
I —. Conclusions of the parties
1. In Case 17/61
2. In Case 20/61
II —. Facts
1. By Decisions Nos 22/54, 14/55, 2/57 and 16/58 the High Authority established a compulsory equalization scheme to prevent Community prices for ferrous scrap from being aligned with the higher prices for scrap imported from third countries. The Office commun des consommateurs de ferraille (OCCF) (The Joint Bureau of Ferrous Scrap Consumers) and the Caisse de péréquation des ferrailes importées (CPFI) (The Imported Ferrous Scrap Equalization Fund) were responsible for managing it. Under this scheme, the undertakings referred to in Article 80 of the ECSC Treaty were liable to pay the required contributions, the amount whereof was calculated pro rata on the tonnages of bought scrap consumed by each undertaking over a prescribed period, whilst the consumption of own resources was not subject to this levy (Decision No 2/57, Articles 3 and 4).
2. At the time when this equalization scheme was in force, the applicants were parent companies responsible for managing the business of several factories in the nature of subsidiary companies.
3. In the meantime the applicants had interpreted the term own resources as meaning scrap not bought and as a result had recorded all the tonnages received by them from their subsidiaries as own resources.
4. By letter of 15 April 1958 addressed to the Office commun des consommateurs de ferraille in Brussels the applicant Klockner-Werke AG maintained the argument that it constituted with the aforesaid subsidiary companies an economic entity within which no commercial dealing, and therefore no purchase of scrap, took place.
III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties
A —. Admissibility
B —. On the substance of the case
1. Infringement of the Treaty and of the rules of law relating to its implementation.
(a). As to the nature oj the Konzern as an undertaking in the opinion of the applicant Klöckner-Werke AC
(b). As to the nature of the parent company as an undertaking, in the opinion of the applicant Hoesch AG
(c). Arguments of the defendant
(d). The interpretation of the basic Decisions
(e). The complaint of discrimination
2. Misuse of powers
3. Infringement of the Treaty by the basic Decisions
4. Infringement of an essential procedural requirement and lack of competence
5. Ownership of the scrap
6. Costs
IV —. Procedure
I —. Submission based on infringement of the Treaty or of the rules of law relating to its application
1. The concepts of undertaking and purchase for the purposes of the application of the equalization scheme for scrap
2. The concept of an undertaking and the attitude of the High Authority
3. On the question whether the disputed scrap can be considered as bought scrap
4. The complaint of discrimination
II —. Submission of misuse of powers
III —. Objections of illegality raised against the basic Decisions
IV —. 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 2, 3, 4, 15, 33, 36, 53 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 Decisions Nos 22/54, 14/55, 2/57 and 16/58 of the High Authority; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities; THE COURT hereby:
1 Dismisses the applications in Joined Cases 17 and 20/61 as unfounded;
2 Orders the applicants to pay the costs.