JUDGMENT OF 13. 7. 1965 — CASE 111/63 LEMMERZ-WERKE v HIGH AUTHORITY
In Case 111/63
THE COURT composed of: Ch. L. Hammes, President, A. M. Dormer and R. Lecourt, Presidents of Chambers, L. Delvaux, A. Trabucchi, W. Strauß (Rapporteur) and R. Monaco, Judges, Advocate-General: K. Roemer Registrar: A. Van Houtte
gives the following
JUDGMENT
Issues of fact and of law
I — Summary of the facts
II — Conclusions of the parties
III — Submissions and arguments of the parties
1. Inadequacy of the statement of reasons: the decision does not state the nature of the DSVG's mistake
2. Inadequacy of the statement of the reasons with regard to the permissibility of the retroactive revocation
3. Inadequacy and inconsistency of the statement of reasons with reference to the applicant's economic situation
4. Ambiguous nature of the reasons for the decision
5. Inadequacy of the statement of reasons with reference to the liability in principle of the applicant to pay equalization contributions
6. The mistaken claim that the company is liable to pay equalization contributions
7. Mistaken assumption of the High Authority that the CPFI decision of 8 May 1971 did not apply to the applicant
8. The mistaken assumption that the applicant must have known that the decision of 8 May 1957 did not affect it
9. Illegality of the revocation
10. Limitation of actions
11. Forfeiture
12. Misuse of powers
13. Mistakes in the calculations
Point 1
Point 2
IV — Procedure
Grounds of judgment
I — The submissions relating to the period prior to 1 February 1957
1. Mistake relating to the principle of liability to contribute to the equalization scheme
2. The exemption of the applicant for the period prior to 1 February 1957 and its eventual withdrawal
3. Limitation of action:
4. Misuse of powers
5. Inadequate statement of the reasons upon which the decision was based
II — The submissions relating to the period after 1 February 1957
A — Admissibility of these submissions
B — The substance of the submissions
1. The rate of exchange to be applied to the calculation of the debts of undertakings
2. The system relating to interest
III — Costs
I —. Summary of the facts
(1). The applicant manufactures wheels and rims for vehicles and in this capacity is not subject to the ECSC Treaty. In order to supply its own requirements it set up a steel works and rolling mill where it commenced production in 1956, as it has stated, initially on a trial basis. It began to buy ferrous scrap in April 1956.
(2). On 2 May 1957 the Imported Ferrous Scrap Equalization Fund (hereafter referred to after its French initials as CPFI) sent the marketing division of the High Authority a letter stating in particular:
(3). According to the minutes of its 32nd meeting, on 8 May 1957, the Board of the CPFI took the following decision:
(4). On 16 May 1957 Mr Lindeboom, a member of the Board of Directors of the Deutsche Schrottverbraucher-Gemeinschaft, the Association of German consumers of scrap (hereinafter referred to by its German initials DSVG), and of the regional office of the CPFI (which also took part in this meeting of the Board) sent the following letter to the CPFI :
(5). On 17 May 1957 the CPFI wrote to the chairman of the regional offices stating; in particular the following:
(6). On 20 May 1957 the DSVG sent various undertakings including the applicant a circular letter stating in parti cular :
(7). According to the minutes of it 33rd meeting on 12 and 13 June 1957 the Board of the CPFI took the follow ing decision:
(8). On 12 June 1958 the Société Fiduciaire Suisse sent the High Authority a report on the checks carried out at the offices of the applicant in the same month; it states in particular:
(9). On 19 November 1958 the marketing division of the High Authority wrote to the CPFI inter alia as follows:
(10). By letter of 19 July 1961 the Directorate-General for Steel of the High Authority sent the applicant a statement of the relevant tonnage of bought ferrous scrap for the period February 1957 to November 1958, stating in addition as follows:
(11). On 8 April 1963 the appropriate department of the High Authority sent the applicant a demand for payment based on the fact that it should have paid contributions before 1 February 1957. The judgment of the Court in Joined Cases 53 and 54/63 of 5 December 1963 dismissed the application against this measure as being inadmissible.
(12). By a decision of 6 November 1963 notified to the applicant on the 21st of the same month the High Authority ordered the applicant to pay within 30 days DM 432043.25, the amount stated in the order for payment mentioned in paragraph (11) above.
II —. Conclusions of the parties
III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties
1. Inadequacy of the statement of reasons: the decision does not state the nature of the DSVG's mistake
2. Inadequacy of the statement of the reasons with regard to the permissibility of the retroactive revocation
3. Inadequacy and inconsistency of the statement of reasons with reference to the applicant's economic situation
4. Ambiguous nature of the reasons for the decision
5. Inadequacy of the statement of reasons with reference to the liability in principle of the applicant to pay equalization contributions
6. The mistaken claim that the company is liable to pay equalization contributions
7. Mistaken assumption of the High Authority that the CPFI decision of 8 May 1971 did not apply to the applicant
8. The mistaken assumption that the applicant must have known that the decision of 8 May 1957 did not affect it
9. Illegality of the revocation
10. Limitation of actions
11. Forfeiture
12. Misuse of powers
13. Mistakes in the calculations
1. The statements of account were prepared using European Monetary Agreement units of account whereas the corresponding amounts charged to the undertakings were calculated in their respective national currencies. On this occasion the High Authority discriminated against the German undertakings by not taking proper account of either the double devaluation of the French franc or the revaluation of the German mark.
2. The illegal procedure followed at that time by the High Authority in connexion with group scrap led to delayed collection of the levy and also to a substantial loss of interest simply because the defendant did not compel the undertakings concerned to pay interest on overdue payments. Now Decision No 7/61 (Official Journal, p. 653) provides, unlike previous decisions, that undertakings should be retroactively exempted from interest for delay and that interest already paid should be deducted from the actual contributions, whilst interest at the rate of 5 % should be credited to undertakings which have paid their contributions, not just in advance, but on the due date.
IV —. Procedure
I —. The submissions relating to the period prior to 1 February 1957
1. Mistake relating to the principle of liability to contribute to the equalization scheme
2. The exemption of the applicant for the period prior to 1 February 1957 and its eventual withdrawal
(a). The legality of the retroactive revocation of a decision granting a benefit to the person to whom it is addressed depends, in the first instance, on the question whether the revoked decision was illegal. This is the position in the present case. In fact no legal provision conferred upon the bodies responsible for the management of the financial machinery of the equalization scheme the authority to grant exemptions.
(b). In the opinion of the applicant the contested decision is incorrect when it states, that … Lemmerz-Werke could not assume that [the decision of the Board of the CPFI] also applied to it, but, on the contrary, had to acknowledge that the decision had been sent to it in error or that it had obtained the benefit of it by mistake, without the specific facts of its case having been examined at all by the Board. Further the applicant submits that the disputed revocation took place after the reasonable period of time for such revocation had already elapsed.
(c). The applicant complains of discrimination in that the defendant did not revoke the exemption granted to other undertakings by the same decision of the CPFI.
3. Limitation of action:
4. Misuse of powers
5. Inadequate statement of the reasons upon which the decision was based
(a). The applicant submits that, although the contested decision states that the notification to the applicant of the circular of 20 May 1957 was based on a mistake, it does not state the nature of the mistake. The statement of the reasons upon which this decision is based shows that, in the opinion of the defendant, the decision which was the subject of the said circular only referred to independent steel foundries, producing steel ingots as well as castings, whereas the applicant never manufactured castings. As this statement of reasons reproduces the main considerations taken into account by the defendant, this complaint is unfounded.
(b). The applicant complains that the contested decision is irrelevant, as a mistake on the part of a person making a declaration does not normally affect the validity of his declaration.
(c). The applicant complains that the only reason put forward by the defendant in justification of the contested revocation was that the applicant should have recognized that in fact the revocation did not apply to it. The defendant should therefore have indicated the reasons why the revocation was justified even if the applicant had become entided to regard its legal position as securely established.
(d). The applicant argues that a contradiction existed between the operative part of the decision demanding payment within thirty days and the statement of reasons, according to which adequate account could be taken of any justifiable reasons when the method of payment is fixed.
(e). The applicant complains that the defendant decided, without having obtained any information on the matter, that the amount to be paid by the applicant was not likely to prejudice its economic situation. As the applicant has not substantiated that it was faced with such difficulties, this complaint is unfounded.
(f). The applicant claims that the statement of reasons distorts the facts by referring to objections which the applicant raised, by way of proceedings, against the defendant's letter of 19 July 1961.
(g). The applicant complains that the defendant did not consider whether the applicant was liable under the equalization scheme for the period prior to 1 February 1957.
II —. The submissions relating to the period after 1 February 1957
A —. Admissibility of these submissions
(a). The defendant raises an objection of inadmissibility based on the fact that the applicant, in its originating application in Case 53/63, acknowledged the correctness of the calculation of the disputed amount, to the extent to which it refers to the period after 1 February 1957.
(b). The defendant raises another objection of inadmissibility on the ground that the applicant's submissions are not sufficiently detailed.
(c). The applicant has produced an opinion of a university professor annexed to its reply but has stated that this opinion does not represent in every respect the view of the applicant.
B —. The substance of the submissions
1. The rate of exchange to be applied to the calculation of the debts of undertakings
2. The system relating to interest
(a). The applicant states that the general decisions contested in this application are illegal, because they introduced a system with regard to interest which is not covered by the decisions made earlier with the assent of the Council, in accordance with Article 53 (b) of the Treaty.
(b). The applicant states that the statement of the reasons upon which Decision No 7/61 is based is inconclusive, on the ground that it does not give the reasons why it would have been impossible for the High Authority to remove the disadvantages of the former system for charging interest for delay in payment and to adopt a system other than the one which is contested.
(c). The applicant maintains that the new system for charging interest adopted by Decision No 7/61 discriminates against undertakings which are not responsible for the delay in their payments.
(d). Finally the applicant submits that Decision No 7/61 is defective because it has retroactive effect and therefore infringes a fundamental legal principle.
III —. 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 the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, especially Articles 3, 4 (b), 53 and 80; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Coal and Steel Community, especially Article 22; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, especially Articles 38 and 69; THE COURT hereby:
1 Dismisses the application as unfounded;
2 Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and one half of the defendant's costs, the other half of the defendant's costs to be borne by the defendant.