JUDGMENT OF 16. 12. 1963 — CASE 36/62 ACIÉRIES DU TEMPLE v HIGH AUTHORITY

In Case 36/62

THE COURT composed of: A. M. Donner, President, Ch. L. Hammes and A. Trabucchi (Presidents of Chambers), L. Delvaux, R. Rossi, R. Lecourt and W. Strauß (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate-General: M. Lagrange 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

1. Wrongful act or omission

A — Generally

B — Failure of the basic Decisions to solve the problem of group ferrous scrap

C — Imprecise definition of bought ferrous scrap at the time of implementation of the basic Decisions

D — Delays and uncertainties in the defining of own resources

E — Illegal exemptions

F — Delay in replying to the applicant; refusal to withdraw the exemptions.

2. Injury and causal link

IV — Procedure

Grounds of judgment

On the substance of the case

Costs

I —. Facts

1. By Decisions 22/54 (Official Journal, 1954, pp. 286 et seq.), 14/55 (Official Journal, 1955, pp. 685 et seq.) and 2/57 (Official Journal, pp. 61/57 et seq.), the defendant set up the equalization scheme to which Community undertakings which were consumers of ferrous scrap were required to pay contributions. Under Article 3 of Decision 22/54, contributions were payable on the tonnage of ferrous scrap bought … by each undertaking whether within the Community or imported from third countries, described briefly in Article 3 of Decision 14/55 and Article 4 of Decision 2/57 as bought ferrous scrap. The last of these provisions also used for the first time the expression own resources in the sense that these were exempted from the contribution.

2. The agencies charged with carrying out these Decisions, the Office Commun des consommateurs de ferraille (O.C.C.F.) (Joint Bureau of Ferrous Scrap Consumers) and the Caisse de perequation de la ferraille importée (C.P.F.I.) (Imported Ferrous Scrap Equalization Fund), set up in Brussels, had doubts as to how far the obligation to pay contributions extended also to the supply of ferrous scrap between undertakings forming a group, and the O.C.C.F. put a question on this point to the defendant. The latter replied by letter of 18 December 1957 (Official Journal of 1 February 1958, pp. 45/58 et seq.) to the effect that only ferrous scrap recovered by (the undertaking) itself on its own premises bearing the same company name could be considered as own resources; the same basic concept should therefore continue to be used which from the beginning the O.C.C.F. had by implication adopted.

3. Previously, however, the O.C.C.F. and the C.P.F.I. had granted exemptions to the undertakings Breda Siderurgica and Hoogovens for ferrous scrap which these undertakings received from certain other companies with which they formed a group; the High Authority's representative at the O.C.C.F. and the C.P.F.I. had made reservations on this point.

4. By letter ot 19 October 1956 addressed to the defendant, the Société nouvelle des usines de Pontlieue — Aciéries du Temple (SNUPAT), of which the present applicant is the successor, had asked whether it was, as seemed reasonable, exempted from the payment of contribution for those quantities of ferrous scrap which it received from Régie Renault; it did not receive any reply to this letter. On 31 March 1958, the company presented a request for exemption which was by implication rejected; in fact, the C.P.F.I. requested the applicant to pay its contribution for the ferrous scrap in question. In its applications Nos 32 and 33/58 made against these measures on 30 June 1958, the applicant expressed the view that the limitation of the exemptions to cases of local integration was arbitrary and too narrow. It referred to its close links with Régie Renault in the organizational, commercial and financial fields, noting especially that:

5. A new application by SNUPAT (Case 49/59 of 31 October 1959) against the defendant resulted in the judgment of 22 February 1961 (Rec. 1961, pp. 109 et seq.) (hereinafter referred to as the second SNUPAT judgment), which annulled the implied refusal to withdraw with retroactive effect the above-mentioned exemptions on the ground that this was also a case of group ferrous scrap subject to payment of the contribution.

6. Thereupon, the defendant withdrew the two exemptions with retroactive effect. By judgment of 12 July 1962 (Rec. 1962, pp. 492 et seq.), the Court dismissed the application made by Hoogovens against that Decision (Case 14/61, hereinafter referred to as the Hoogovens judgment); in that case the present applicant intervened in support of the High Authority, the defendant in the case.

7. On 28 December 1962 the Société des Aciéries du Temple made the present application for compensation.

II —. Conclusions of the parties

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

1. Wrongful act or omission

A —. Generally

B —. Failure of the basic Decisions to solve the problem of group ferrous scrap

C —. Imprecise definition of bought ferrous scrap at the time of implementation of the basic Decisions

D —. Delays and uncertainties in the defining of own resources

E —. Illegal exemptions

F —. Delay in replying to the applicant; refusal to withdraw the exemptions.

2. Injury and causal link

IV —. Procedure

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 Article 40 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, in particular Article 69(2); THE COURT hereby :

1 Dismisses the application as unfounded;

2 Orders the applicant to pay the costs.