JUDGMENT OF 16. 2. 1965 — CASE 14/64 GUALCO v COMMISSION

In Case 14/64

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

A — On admissibility

B — On the substance

1. As to the date when the Leone undertaking ceased operations

2. As to the calculation of the amount of ferrous scrap used

IV — Procedure

Grounds of judgment

On admissibility

On the substance of the case

Costs

I —. Summary of the facts

II —. Conclusions of the parties

(a). declare that this action is admissible;

(b). in accordance with Article 23 of Protocol on the Statute of the Court, order the defendant to produce all the documents relating to the questions at issue and in particular the records of the investigations carried out by the S.A.F.S. at Acciaieria Ing. A. Leone of Turin and at Acciaieria e Ferriere di Borgaro;

(c). annul the individual decision of the High Authority (taken on 18 March 1964 and notified on 28 March) for misuse of power owing to a misrepresentation of the facts forming the basis for the calculation of the equalization contribution which it contains;

(d). order the defendant to bear the costs.

1. Is it true that following the death of the late Vittorio Leone (4 March 1956) his widow tried to continue managing the undertaking herself but that being inexpert and illassisted, she was forced to close the undertaking and to cease all activity in the iron and steel business from 30 April 1957? Further that she was forced to cancel the contract for the supply of electricity which she had made with the Turin municipal electricity generating station, to put out her electric smelting furnace for good, to discontinue all purchases of ferrous scrap, and finally to lay off her workers?

2. Is it true that Acciaieria Leone, in carrying out for the most part processing work on behalf of third parties and in consequence recovering considerable quantities of arisings treated as own resources, can claim to be exempt from any equalization contribution on the aforementioned quantities?

3. Is it true that the own resources of the steel works were consistendy of the order of 12 % to 15 % of the ferrous scrap used in the electric furnace?

4. Is it true that during the period when it was engaged in the iron and steel business (1 October 1955 to 30 April 1957), Acciaieria Leone produced castings of the order of 20 % to 25 % of its production of cast steel?

5. Is it true that Acciaieria Leone divided its work force (40 workers) into two eight-hour shifts, and from sixteen hours of operation obtained on average four casts of steel a day?

(a). for want of authority to act,

(b). for failure to observe the principle of res judicata:

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

A —. On admissibility

B —. On the substance

1. As to the date when the Leone undertaking ceased operations

2. As to the calculation of the amount of ferrous scrap used

IV —. Procedure

1. Declare that the arguments set out in Case 14/64 are inadmissible as not being in due form (in the present state of the documents), and order the High Authority to amend documents Nos 2 and 3 annexed to its memorandum of defence (entered in the Register of the Court under No 15339 and lodged at the Registry on 27 May 1964) in accordance with Article 29 (1) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure;

2. Prescribe a new time-limit t from the date of the amendment and service of the documents in question for the filing of the applicant's reply; having regard to the vacation period it is requested that this time-limit be set at at least 40 days from the said amendment;

3. Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings arising out of the application concerning this procedural issue.

—. it leaves to the discretion of the Court the prescribing of a new time-limit for the next steps in the proceedings in accordance with Article 91 (4) of the Rules of Procedure;

—. it requests the Court to place on record that the raising of this procedural issue is obstructive and vexatious, and therefore to order the applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings, together with those of the main action.

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 33 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, especially Articles 38 and 69; THE COURT hereby:

1 Dismisses Application 14/64;

2 Orders the applicant to pay the costs, including those of the application on the procedural issue.

1 Translator's Note: This formal rejection, in the operative part of the judgments of the Court, is not normally expressed in the English translation of the Reports.