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