JUDGMENT OF 16. 6. 1966 — CASE 54/65 FORGES DE CHATILLON v HIGH AUTHORITY

In Case 54/65

THE COURT composed of: Ch. L. Hammes, President, L. Delvaux and W. Strauß (Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, A. M. Donner, A. Trabucchi, R. Lecourt and R. Monaco, Judges, Advocate-General: J. Gand 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

1. The application for annulment

A — First submission: Infringement of Article 53 (b) of the ECSC Treaty and the general decisions of the High Authority governing the equalization scheme for imported ferrous scrap

(a) Does the material in question constitute ferrous scrap?

(b) Does the price of the material in question depend directly on that of ordinary scrap?

B — Second submission: Infringement of Article 15 of the ECSC Treaty

C — Third submission: Infringement of Article 4 (b) of the ECSC Treaty

D — Fourth submission: Infringement of the rules applicable to the revocation of administrative measures

2. The claim for damages

IV — Procedure

Grounds of judgment

I — The application for annulment

First submission: Infringement of Article 53 (b) of the ECSC Treaty and of the general decisions of the High Authority governing the equalization scheme for imported ferrous scrap

Second submission: Infringement of Article 15 of the ECSC Treaty

Third submission: Infringement of Article 4 (b) of the ECSC Treaty

Fourth submission: Infringement of the general principles of law applying to the revocation of administrative measures

II — The claim for damages

III — Costs

I —. Facts

1. The applicant exploits a patent for the production of pure iron known as Armco, a metal characterized by a high degree of chemical purity. During the period in which the equalization scheme for imported ferrous scrap was in force, the applicant sold certain by-products of this manufacturing process. Considering that these by-products constituted ferrous scrap as referred to in the basic decisions which successively governed this scheme, it deducted the tonnage concerned from the basis of assessment of its equalization contributions.

2. By letter dated 12 June 1958 addressed to the applicant the Caisse de Péréquation des Ferrailles Importees (the Imported Ferrous Scrap Equalization Fund), hereinafter referred to as the CPFI, accepted these deductions except for certain materials described by the applicant as arisings from billets.

3. By letter of 17 August 1961, the defendant informed the applicant that:

4. On 21 July 1965 the High Authority adopted the contested decision which was notified to the applicant on 31 August 1965.

II —. Conclusions of the parties

1. Declare that the application for annulment is unfounded;

2. Declare that the claim for damages is unfounded;

3. Therefore, dismiss the application and order the applicant to pay the costs of the action.

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

1. The application for annulment

A —. First submission: Infringement of Article 53 (b) of the ECSC Treaty and the general decisions of the High Authority governing the equalization scheme for imported ferrous scrap

(a). Does the material in question constitute ferrous scrap?

(a). By its Decision No 28/53 of 13 March 1953, to which several general decisions adopted in relation to the equalization scheme refer, the defendant had fixed maximum prices for ferrous scrap. This decision established, for all categories of ferrous scrap, price differentials which were applicable in relation to the basic category. As no differential was laid down for the products in question, if the applicant had correctly described them, it should have sold them at the price of ordinary ferrous scrap; in fact, the applicant rightly did not do this.

(b). It is significant that the applicant and its sister company rightly believed themselves to be obliged to publish price lists for the products in question. These two companies maintain that they were the only undertakings ever to have published price lists for materials which they claim nevertheless to have sold as ferrous scrap. It is also surprising that these price lists described the materials in question as semi-finished products and specified that they were intended for re-casting, when the applicant is at present stating that such a description confers the character of ferrous scrap on the material in question.

(c). To the extent that the applicant bases its argument on the 5 % difference in price between these two products, it must be observed that:

(b). Does the price of the material in question depend directly on that of ordinary scrap?

B —. Second submission: Infringement of Article 15 of the ECSC Treaty

C —. Third submission: Infringement of Article 4 (b) of the ECSC Treaty

D —. Fourth submission: Infringement of the rules applicable to the revocation of administrative measures

2. The claim for damages

IV —. Procedure

I —. The application for annulment

1. …

2. Part of your Armco arisings sold to third parties was deducted and part was not deducted from the tonnages subject to the levy … The ferrous scrap resulting from the Armco products is to be treated in the statements as ordinary ferrous scrap. Consequently, the 257 metric tons are still deductible …

3. …

II —. The claim for damages

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 Articles 4, 14, 15, 33, 40 and 53 pf the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statue 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 Article 69 (2); Having regard to Decisions Nos 28/53 (Official Journal of 15 March 1953, p. 97), 21/54 (Official Journal of 30 March 1954, p. 286) and 13/58 (Official Journal of 30 July 1958, p. 269) of the High Authority; THE COURT hereby:

1 Dismisses the application for annulment and the claim for damages as unfounded;

2 Orders the applicant to pay the costs of the action.