JUDGMENT OF 29. 3. 1979 — CASE 119/77 NIPPON SEIKO v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION

In Case 119/77

THE COURT composed of: H. Kutscher, President, J. Mertens de Wilmars and Lord Mackenzie Stuart (Presidents of Chambers), A. M. Donner, P. Pescatore, M. Sørensen, A. O'Keeffe, G. Bosco and A. Touffait, Judges, Advocate General: J.-P. Warner Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts and Issues

I — Facts and procedure

(a) The framework of the legislation

(b) Facts

(c) The subject-matter of the dispute

(d) Procedure

II — Conclusions of the parties

III — Submissions and arguments of the parties

Admissibility

Application

The objection of inadmissibility entered by the Council

The objection of inadmissibility entered by the Commission

Answer of the applicants to the objections of inadmissibility

Rejoinders

The substance of the case

A — Failure to observe procedural requirements

B — Inadequate and defective reasoning

C — Fundamental errors of fact

D — Other infringements of the provisions of Regulation No 459/68

E — Discrimination between the exporters referred to in Article 3 of the contested regulation

F — Misuse of powers

G — Compensation for damage

Defence of the Council and observations of the intervener

B — Reasoning

C — Fundamental errors of fact (paragraphs 46 to 50)

D — Other infringements of the provisions of Regulation No 459/68

E — Discrimination

F — Misuse of powers

G — Compensation for damage

Defence of the Commission

A — Failure to observe procedural requirements

Reply of the applicants

A — Failure to observe procedural requirements

B — Reasoning

C — Errors of fact

D — Other infringements of the provisions of Regulation No 459/68

E — Discrimination

F — Misuse of powers

Rejoinder of the Council

B — Reasoning

C — Fundamental errors of fact

D — Other infringements of the provisions of Regulation No 459/68

E — Discrimination

F — Misuse of powers

G — As regards the claim for compensation for damage, the Council refers to its defence.

Rejoinder of the Commission

A — Failure to observe procedural requirements

IV — Oral procedure

Decision

The admissibility of the application for annulment

The substance of the application for annulment

The action for damages

Costs