JUDGMENT OF 13. 7. 1965 — CASE 39/64 ACIÉRIES DU TEMPLE v HIGH AUTHORITY

In Case 39/64

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

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Facts

II — Conclusions of the parties

III — Submissions and arguments of the parties

Admissibility

Substance of the case

A — Lack of competence, infringement of essential procedural requirements, infringement of the Treaty

B — Misuse of powers, and discriminations

C — Inadequate statement of reasons

D — The illegality of the interest on overdue payments

E — The retroactive effects of the contested decisions

IV — Procedure

Grounds of judgment

A — The submissions of lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement and infringement of the Treaty

B — The submission of misuse of powers and discrimination

C — The submission that the statement of reasons was inadequate

D — The submission that the interest on overdue payments was illegal

E — The submission concerning the retroactive effects of Decision No 7/61

Costs

I —. Facts

II —. Conclusions of the parties

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

A —. Lack of competence, infringement of essential procedural requirements, infringement of the Treaty

B —. Misuse of powers, and discriminations

(a). According to Article 5 of Decision No 7/61, the sums already paid by undertakings by way of interest on overdue payments are considered as payments on account of contributions due by way of principal. The result is that since these contributions are divided amongst all the contributor undertakings, it follows that the interest on overdue payments is also divided amongst all the undertakings subject to the financial arrangements.

(b). According to Article 3 of Decision No 7/61 the interest due to undertakings which have paid in advance (interest credited to undertakings by Decision No 21/58) is charged to and divided amongst all the undertakings until the accounts are finally closed. Thus the contribution due from each undertaking varies in proportion to empirical and subjective factors such as the greater or lesser promptness of the undertakings in paying their contributions and the dispatch with which the High Authority finally closes the accounts.

(c). The High Authority has not laid down any rules to deal with payments wrongly or mistakenly made, or even made as a result of frauds perpetrated on it and the authorities at Brussels.

(d). Nor does the High Authority make it clear which undertakings are the beneficiaries of the equalization scheme and of the interest on credit balances as regards undertakings which have received ferrous scrap at reduced prices, in cases where the High Authority itself has taken over in whole or in part the importation of ferrous scrap.

(e). The High Authority gave what was in practice a bonus, for which the equalization arrangements did not provide, to a whole series of undertakings, by reason of the following circumstances :

(f). On the other hand, for the contributor undertakings called upon to pay the supplementary contribution, which replaces the interest on overdue payments and which is intended to offset these windfalls, the system thus described involves an additional charge and therefore very serious distortions. Furthermore it also involves discrimination contrary to the provisions of Article 4 (b) of the Treaty, and contrary to the fundamental principle contained in Article 2.

C —. Inadequate statement of reasons

a). As to the first complaint the applicant reminds the Court that so soon as he enforceable decision was sent to it t paid the sum representing its contribution owing in respect of principal so hat nothing can be said against its good faith. Having said this the applicant emphasizes that the High Authority has made a large number of mistakes in administering the financial arrangements for example, the exemptions based on he notion of local integration) and hat because of these mistakes the contested decisions cannot possibly be considered justified.

(b). As to the second complaint the applicant maintains that the statement of the reasons given for Decision No 7/61 neither renders the decision void nor confirms its validity because the said statement does not give reasons why the High Authority chose the contested system rather than some other, and does not mention the provisions under which the High Authority was supposedly empowered to adopt the contested system.

D —. The illegality of the interest on overdue payments

(a). It is generally accepted law (cf. Article 1153, French Civil Code) that interest on overdue payments is only due as from the day when payment is demanded, except in those cases where the law causes it to run automatically. In the present case, since the Council, which alone was empowered to make a law, has not adopted any measure as regards this matter, it follows that the above-mentioned interest cannot run automatically. It is only Decisions Nos 19/60 and 20/60 which make the interest run from the day when the notice of the statement of account is received; the other decisions make it run automatically.

(b). It is also generally accepted law that interest on overdue payments is only due on a failure to pay a sum which is certain, liquidated and due. However the decisions of the High Authority which are the basis for the contested individual decision (an enforceable decision) make this interest run on the basis of provisional statements of account, and until the final closing of the accounts.

E —. The retroactive effects of the contested decisions

(a). As to Decision No 7/61,

(b). As to Decision No 7/63,

IV —. Procedure

A —. The submissions of lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement and infringement of the Treaty

B —. The submission of misuse of powers and discrimination

(a). In support of this submission the applicant relies first on Article 5 of Decision No 7/61, according to which sums already paid by undertakings by way of interest on overdue payments are to be treated as payments on account of the contributions by way of principal. The applicant thinks that it can deduce from this provision that the system of interest on overdue payments has been retained, and that this interest, which is owed by certain undertakings, has to be shared out as a charge on all the undertakings subject to the scheme. Thus these undertakings as a whole would be required to bear the consequences of the delay on the part of some of their competitors in paying their contributions.

(b). The applicant also argues that the amount of the supplementary contribution for servicing interest necessarily depends on how promptly the undertakings pay their contributions, and how quickly the High Authority carries out the final closure of the accounts. Thus this system, it is argued, introduces subjective and empirical factors into the financial arrangements for the equalization of ferrous scrap, and has the effect of making all the undertakings subject to the scheme bear the consequences of the delay on the part of the defaulting undertakings.

(c). The applicant also maintains that the crediting of certain interest gives the recipient undertakings an unjustified advantage which places additional means of finance at their disposal, and favours them as compared with the debtor undertakings.

C —. The submission that the statement of reasons was inadequate

D —. The submission that the interest on overdue payments was illegal

E —. The submission concerning the retroactive effects of Decision No 7/61

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 15, 33, 36 and 53; 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 Euro-Dean Communities; THE COURT hereby Declares the present application admissible and:

1 Dismisses the application as unfounded;

2 Orders the applicant to bear the costs of the proceedings.