JUDGMENT OF 8. 2. 1968 — CASE 3/67 MANDELLI v COMMISSION

In Case 3/67

THE COURT composed of: R. Lecourt, President, A. M. Donner and W. Strauß, Presidents of Chambers, A. Trabucchi and P. Pescatore (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

1. Infringement of an essential procedural requirement

2. Infringement of the Treaty or a rule of law relating to its application

IV — Procedure

Grounds of judgment

1. The statement of reasons for the decision fixing the tonnage of assessable scrap

2. The method of assessment used by the High Authority

3. Costs

I —. Facts

II —. Conclusions of the parties

(a). A report by one or more foundry experts of international repute to determine what the quantities of scrap acquired and consumed by the applicant undertaking during the period in question could have been, taking into account its special features, the technological running-in period in which it was at the time any other factors, including those arising from the undertaking's past development; alternatively or additionally:

(b). A visit of inspection in order to obtain a better and direct impression of the technical facts and the real nature of the situations described during the course of the present case;

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

1. Infringement of an essential procedural requirement

2. Infringement of the Treaty or a rule of law relating to its application

IV —. Procedure

1. The statement of reasons for the decision fixing the tonnage of assessable scrap

(a). The statement of reasons for a decision is sufficient where on the one hand it enables those concerned to know the essential considerations of fact and of law upon which the High Authority relies, and on the other hand enables the Court to exercise the judicial review entrusted to it by the Treaty. The High Authority has given a clear and consistent statement of the reasons for its decision as regards the recourse to an estimated assessment, the procedure followed and the facts taken into consideration in applying this procedure. These elements are sufficient to enable the applicant to understand the scope of the decision concerning it and to defend its interests, as well as to enable the Court to exercise its review.

(b). The discrepancy found between the provisional information communicated to the applicant during the preliminary procedure and the decision of 7 December 1966 does not affect the validity of the decision, which is justified in itself. The applicant cannot plead to its advantabe discrepancies which are due mainly to the deficiencies and uncertainties present in the information which it supplied.

2. The method of assessment used by the High Authority

(a). The applicant submits that, according to General Decisions Nos 13/58 and 16/58, recourse to the procedure of estimated assessments for the purpose of determining the consumption of scrap subject to contribution is only permitted where no declarations have been submitted by the undertaking, so that the High Authority failed to take into account certain criteria of assessment, relating in particular to the company's casting foundry, thereby discriminating against the applicant.

(b). All the fundamental data on which, as a result of the procedure adopted for making an estimated assessment, the High Authority's decision is based, arise from the data supplied by the applicant while the inspections were being carried out, as is expressly stated in the statement of reasons itself and, more particularly, from its observations on the investigation conducted on behalf of the High Authority by the engineer Mr Studer. These particulars disclosed the inaccuracy of the first declarations made by the undertaking with regard to scrap bought. In making use of the particulars thus supplied by the applicant, the High Authority also took into account various factors capable of improving the undertaking's liability to pay contributions, even to the extent of including tonnages of exempt scrap corresponding to sales of castings for which no invoices were issued.

3. 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 the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, especially Articles 4, 14, 15, 33, 47, 53, 80 and 92; 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, THE COURT hereby:

1 Dismisses the application; and

2 Orders the applicant to bear the costs.