JUDGMENT OF 21. 1. 1965—CASE 108/63 MERLINI v HIGH AUTHORITY

In Case 108/63

THE COURT composed of: Ch. L. Hammes, President, A. M. Donner (Rapporteur) and R. Lecourt, Presidents of Chambers, L. Delvaux and A. Trabucchi, Judges, Advocate-General: K. Roemer Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Statement of facts

II— Conclusions of the parties The applicant claims that the Court should:

III — Submissions and arguments of the parties

On admissibility

On the substance of the case

A — Infringement of the rules of law arising from national laws

B — Failure to state reasons

C — Preclusion of the right to claim new debts for the period in question

D — Misuse of powers

1. Error in the assessment of the quantities of assessable ferrous scrap

2. Error in fixing the equalization rate applicable

IV— Procedure

Grounds of judgment

The admissibility of the application

On the submissions

1. Infringement of rules of law derived from national laws

2. Failure to state reasons

3. Preclusion of the right to present fresh claims in accordance with the new findings

4. Misuse of powers

Costs

I —. Statement of facts

II—. Conclusions of the parties The applicant claims that the Court should:

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

(a). The defendant disputes the admissibility of the following submissions:

(b). The defendant finds that the applicant's Counsel inserted in the reply a statement in the form drawn up by the Merlini company, and added his signature to it, on the pretext that he had been unable to revise it owing to circumstances which had arisen in the meantime and in view of the expiry of the period of time for submitting the reply.

A —. Infringement of the rules of law arising from national laws

B —. Failure to state reasons

C —. Preclusion of the right to claim new debts for the period in question

D —. Misuse of powers

1. Error in the assessment of the quantities of assessable ferrous scrap

2. Error in fixing the equalization rate applicable

IV—. Procedure

1. Infringement of rules of law derived from national laws

2. Failure to state reasons

3. Preclusion of the right to present fresh claims in accordance with the new findings

4. Misuse of powers

(a). The applicant commences by disputing the High Authority's right to make an estimated assessment in this case.

(b). In the absence of any documentary evidence, the defendant founded its estimated assessment on the consumption of electricity for production purposes and on the capacity of the undertaking's furnaces.

(c). The applicant takes strong exception to what in its view are the excessively high rates of equalization laid down for the consecutive years for the period 1954-1957 and claims that the increase in the rates from 1.65 lire per kilogramme of ferrous scrap purchased in March 1954 to 12 lire per kilogramme in March 1957 is only explicable through errors committed by the bodies running the equalization scheme which the High Authority ought to have put right. Such an allegation is not sufficient of itself for the rate to be considered illegal, the more so since the defendant explains that on the contrary this was not a permanent increase in the rate, but that it was increased and diminished in terms of the fluctuating prices on the world market of ferrous scrap.

(d). The final complaint is that the defendant failed to take into account the activities of the large iron and steel complexes which were interested in obtaining ferrous scrap on the world market and which led to the distortion of data relating to the internal market.

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 the second paragraph of Article 33 and to Articles, 36, 53 and 92 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, especially Article 20; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, especially Articles 37 to 45 and 69; THE COURT hereby:

1 Dismisses Application 108/63 as unfounded;

2 Orders the applicant to pay the costs of the action.

1 Translator's Note: Article 20 appears to be meant.