JUDGMENT OF 15.7.1964 — CASE 66/63 NETHERLANDS v HIGH AUTHORITY

In Case 66/63

THE COURT composed of: A. M. Donner, President, Ch. L. Hammes and A. Trabucchi (Rapporteur) (Presidents of Chambers). L. Delvaux, R. Rossi, R. Lecourt and W. Strauss, 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

A — On admissibility

B — On the substance of the case

1. On the submission of infringement of an essential procedural requirement

2. On the submission of lack of competence

3. On the submission of infringement of the Treaty

(a) The system of supervision

(b) The structure of the two selling agencies and their position in the market considered in relation to Article 65 (2) (c) of the Treaty

(c) The position of each agency in relation to Article 65(2) (c)

(d) On the grounds of complaint based on Article 65 (2) (a) and (b)

4. On the submission of misuse of powers

IV — Procedure

Grounds of judgment

A — On admissibility

B — On the substance of the case

1. On the submission of infringement of an essential procedural requirement

2. On the submission of infringement of the Treaty, of lack of competence and misuse of powers

(a) The system of supervision

(b) The requirements of Article 65 (2) (b) and (c)

(c) Misuse of powers

Costs

I —. Facts

II —. Conclusions of the parties

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

A —. On admissibility

B —. On the substance of the case

1. On the submission of infringement of an essential procedural requirement

(a). The applicant asserts that as the contracts and resolutions authorized were not published in extenso, the grounds for the contested Decisions give only an incomplete picture of the system approved by the High Authority.

(b). The applicant alleges that the reasons given for the contested Decisions are not sufficient to show that the system authorized meets the requirements of the Treaty and thus do not enable it to verify the existence of the conditions required to grant the authorization. In particular, it emphasizes that the contested Decisions take into account neither the composition and structure of the associations of undertakings nor the economic situation of each association in relation to the other. Thus the High Authority has in no way shown that the system authorized guarantees the conditions of competition required by the Treaty (Article 65 (2) (c)). Also, no evidence is brought to show that the authorized agreements contributed to an improved distribution of the products concerned, as required by Article 65 (2) (a): the 26th Recital of the contested Decisions merely asserts that this condition is fulfilled. Moreover the High Authority considered only part of the provisions of the agreements authorized in order to establish (pursuant to Article 65 (2) (b)) that they were not more restrictive than was necessary for that purpose.

2. On the submission of lack of competence

3. On the submission of infringement of the Treaty

(a). The system of supervision

(b). The structure of the two selling agencies and their position in the market considered in relation to Article 65 (2) (c) of the Treaty

(c). The position of each agency in relation to Article 65(2) (c)

(d). On the grounds of complaint based on Article 65 (2) (a) and (b)

4. On the submission of misuse of powers

IV —. Procedure

A —. On admissibility

B —. On the substance of the case

1. On the submission of infringement of an essential procedural requirement

2. On the submission of infringement of the Treaty, of lack of competence and misuse of powers

(a). The system of supervision

(b). The requirements of Article 65 (2) (b) and (c)

(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 15, 33 and 65 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 Dismisses the application as unfounded save as hereinafter mentioned;

2 Annuls the words or its departments in Article 15 (3) of the contested Decisions;

3 Orders the applicant to pay the costs.