JUDGMENT OF 31. 3. 1965—CASE 21/64 MACCHIORLATI v HIGH AUTHORITY
In Case 21/64
THE COURT composed of: Ch. L. Hammes, President, A. M. Donner and R. Lecourt, Presidents of Chambers, L. Delvaux and R. Monaco (Rapporteur), 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
Admissibility
The substance of the case
The principal conclusions
A — Against the individual decision of 8 April 1964
Infringement of an essential procedural requirement by reason of the contradictory and absurd statement of the reasons upon which it is based
Infringement of an essential procedural requirement on the ground of the inadequacy of the statement of reasons upon which the decision on the request of 18 February 1964 for remission of the surcharges for delay is based
Misuse of powers in that the High Authority maintained its claim for surcharges for delay notwithstanding its agreement with the applicant for their remission
Infringement of Article 6 of Decision No 3/52
B — Against general Decisions Nos 3/52 and 29/55
Infringement of Article 50 (2) of the Treaty in conjunction with general Decision No 3/52
Infringement of the first paragraph of Article 36 and of Article 50 (3) of the Treaty in conjunction with Article 6 of Decision No 3/52 and Decision No 29/55
C — Against the individual decisions of 13 February 1959 and of 8 April 1964 and general Decisions Nos 3/52 and 31/55
The ancillary and alternative conclusions
IV — Procedure
Grounds of judgment
Admissibility
The substance
The principal conclusions
The decision of 8 April 1964
General Decisions Nos 3/52 and 29/55
Alternative conclusions
Costs
I —. Summary of the facts
II —. Conclusions of the parties
III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties
1. As far as the individual decision of 13 February 1959 is concerned
2. As far as the general Decisions Nos 3/52, 29/55 and 31/55 relating to the levies are concerned
A —. Against the individual decision of 8 April 1964
(a). requests in its reply that Mr Domenico Capodanno who assisted Macchiorlati at the meeting of 21 April 1960 be permitted to give evidence as a witness of the circumstances and the terms of the agreement;
(b). refers to:
(c). relies on the wording of these letters and states that the wording of the second as well as the conduct of the officials of the High Authority at the meeting of 21 April 1960 justifiably convinced Macchiorlati that the remission would be granted.
B —. Against general Decisions Nos 3/52 and 29/55
C —. Against the individual decisions of 13 February 1959 and of 8 April 1964 and general Decisions Nos 3/52 and 31/55
(1). The individual decision of 8 April 1964, in so far as the application of the surcharges for delay amounts to a misuse of powers, because it is based on a defective calculation of that part of the debt consisting of principal;
(2). The individual decision of 13 February 1959, to the extent to which its content is confirmed by the decision of 8 April 1964 of which it is the legal foundation. The applicant complains in particular that this decision infringes Article 47 of the Treaty;
(3). General Decision No 31/55, in so far as Article 4 of this Decision, which authorizes the High Authority to calculate itself the assessable tonnage and the amount of the levy infringes Article 47 of the Treaty because it confers unrestricted power on the High Authority and opens the way to the adoption by it of arbitrary procedures;
(4). General Decision No 3/52 and its later amendments, to the extent that the rate of the levies was kept at a higher level than was necessary to cover the expenditure mentioned in Article 50 (1) of the Treaty, in order to appropriate a large proportion of them to the guarantee fund and to the special reserve fund which are not mentioned in this Article. Because the amount of the levy up to June 1963 was an excessive tax burden, it has, as in the present case, necessarily led to the abandonment of the implementation of plant modernization programmes, which was contrary to the objectives referred to in Articles 3 (c) and (d) and 5 of the Treaty.
IV —. Procedure
1. The applicant submits that this decision is illegal because the statement of the reasons upon which it is based is in law inadequate. It argues to begin with that its reasons are ambiguous and quotes certain passages of the statement of reasons in order to show that it is factually inaccurate and contradictory.
2. The applicant further states that the High Authority has misused its powers by continuing to demand payment of the surcharges for delay, although at the meeting of 21 April 1960 it gave it an assurance that the surcharges for delay would be remitted if the arrears of the levies were duly paid. It goes on to say that it was on the strength of this assurance that it discontinued its application in Case 22/59. In support of this submission it refers to part of the correspondence between the parties after 21 April 1960 and tenders evidence of the verbal assurances to this effect which certain officials of the High Authority are said to have given it.
3. The applicant further argues that the decision of 8 April 1964 infringes Article 6 of general Decision No 3/52, since in calculating the surcharges for delay it rounded up the amounts, thereby exceeding the flat rate of 1 % laid down by this Article. The amount of each surcharge for delay is said in fact to have been rounded either up or down and only by fractions of a lira, so that the entire debt of the applicant was increased by 0.83 lire. This statement has not been challenged.
1. The applicant argues that Article 6 of Decision No 3/52 and Decision No 29/55 do not comply with Article 50 (3) of the Treaty, which fixes the maximum rate of surcharges for delay. These provisions are said to be contrary to the general principle of Article 36 of the Treaty to the effect that the parties concerned must be given the opportunity to submit their comments before pecuniary sanctions are imposed upon them. Article 6 of Decision No 3/52, according to the applicant, lays down a fixed rate for surcharges for delay, independently of the nature, seriousness and frequency of the failure to pay which they penalize.
2. The applicant also submits that Decision No 3/52 is illegal in that it was adopted without prior consultation with the Special Council of Ministers, as provided by Article 50 (2) of the Treaty, which also applies to surcharges for delay. The provisions of Article 50 (2) of the Treaty relate only to the mode of assessment and collection of levies. If the draftsman had intended to enlarge the scope of these provisions so as to include surcharges for delay, which he deals with in the next paragraph, he would have mentioned them expressly. As this Article lays down the essential procedural requirements for the validity of decisions of the High Authority in the matter of levies, its application cannot be extended by way of interpretation to cases not provided for by the Treaty. Therefore the submission is unfounded.
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 14, 15, 33, 36, 50 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 annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, especially Article 69; THE COURT hereby:
I Dismisses the application;
2 Orders the applicant to bear the. costs.