C-5/55

defendant,

APPLICATION for an interpretation of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 December 1954 in Case 2/54,

THE COURT

composed of: Massimo Pilotti, President, L. Delvaux and A. van Kleffens (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.S. Serrarens, O. Riese, J. Rueff and Ch. L. Hammes, Judges,

Advocate General: M. Lagrange Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

infringed Article 30 (2) of the Convention more quickly to any alterations in the on the Transitional Provisions and thus price-lists of their competitors, it does not, amounted to an infringement ofthe Treaty however, seriously affect the special pro within the meaning of the first paragraph tection given to them. of Article 33. This claim was based on the On the other hand, as regards Article 1 of fact that the contested decision allowed the decision the applicant's claim is justi non-Italian steel producers in the Commu fied for the following reasons: nity to make tenders on the Italian market Even if it is thought that Article 30 of the and elsewhere, at prices below those in Transitional Provisions is particularly in their price-lists, although Article 30 (2) of tended to prevent prices from being the Convention on the Transitional Provi aligned on those of Italian undertakings it sions prevented the High Authority from does not necessarily follow that this provi allowing this without the agreement of the sion does not give other protection as well.

The contest founded; it based its decision on the fact ed decisions create a new system appli inter alia that that article infringed Article cable to the whole of the Common Market 30 (2) of the Convention on the Transition under which sale below the prices con al Provisions. On this issue the Court ex tained in the price-lists is lawful. This sys pressed itself as follows in Part A, Section tem remains subject to the prohibition II, point 11 of the grounds of judgment: provided for in Article 30, especially as that article does not expressly mention 'The applicant seeks the annulment of Ar alignment but uses very general terms.

Italian market. In the present case Article jected on the above-mentioned grounds. 30 prohibits variations from the price-lists Although the provision of Article 3 of De from being extended to the Italian market. cision No 2/54 reducing the period provi Since Decision No 2/54 disregards this ded for the application of the new price- prohibition it infringes a legal rule on the lists forces the Italian undertakings to react application of the Treaty.'

The applicant had also brought an action sale in Italy below the prices provided for against the High Authority at the same by the price-lists.' (Journal Officiel, 11 time as the Italian Government. In so far as January 1955, final paragraph of p. 572) the incompatibility between Article 1 of Decision No 2/54 of the High Authority and and Article 30 (2) ofthe Convention on the Transitional Provisions was at issue the 'Article 30 must therefore be interpreted as applicant put forward basically the same follows: arguments as the Italian Government, but alleging misuse of powers. In its defence even if sale below the prices shown in the the High Authority put forward to a large price-lists were by way ofexception lawful, extent the same arguments as in Case 2/54. it would not be so on the Italian market.' In the grounds of judgment in Case 3/54, (ibid., first paragraph of p. 573) Section 2, No 1, the Court stated that there was no need to give a decision on this issue 'These two passages permit only one con for the following reasons: clusion: in the present circumstances the Italian steel undertakings are required on 'Since Article 1 of Decision No 2/54 of the the Italian market to charge solely the High Authority was for all purposes an prices in their respective price-lists unless nulled by judgment of 21 December 1954 they find themselves required to face in the case of the French Government v competition from undertakings in third The High Authority, this application for countries, in which case they may align annulment has on this point no longer any their quotations on those of undertakings purpose. outside the Community. In these circumstances it is not necessary to The High Authority would like to draw the consider whether, on this point, the appli attention of your association to the im cation is or is not well founded or to give an portance of the foregoing. It asks you to be express ruling thereon in the judgment good enough to remind your members to since a decision which has already been an ensure that in their methods of quoting the nulled or withdrawn in the meantime can Treaty is observed.'

3. On 28 February 1955 the High Au takings on the Italian market; and that, on thority wrote to the applicant: the other hand, it does not prohibit within the Italian market alignment by Italian un 'Previously the correct interpretation of dertakings on the prices of other non-Ital Article 30 (2) of the Convention on. the ian but Community undertakings.' Transitional Provisions has given rise to various questions by the different groups The High Authority replies that:

'The Court sees in Article 30 of the Tran­ The relevant part of the judgment in Case sitional Provisions a prohibition on any 2/54 has become by way of reference part

ASSIDER v HIGH AUTHORITY

It can Community as clearly appears from the not be ruled out that the draftsmen of the judgment and in particular from the sen Treaty wished to grant the Italian steel in tence: 'The actual objective of this provi dustry complete protection within the Ital sion is therefore to prevent the non-Italian ian market, that is to say, even against their undertakings from competing with the own national competitors. Italian undertakings on the Italian market It is true that in its judgment in Case 2/54 by undercutting their own price-lists.' The the Court did not have to give a ruling on High Authority is therefore mistaken in re this problem, but the grounds ofjudgment fusing at present, contrary to its previous were such as to allow the High Authority opinion, to allow Italian undertakings to to draw the conclusions which it set out in align themselves, in their national market, its letter of 28 February 1955.

To claim the contrary would really be beg ging the question, for in the absence ofany 6. To these arguments the High Authority clear and precise provision it is quite legi answers that the admissibility of the appli timate to accept that the Convention in cation may be contested on several tended to give the Italian undertakings grounds. temporarily and by way of exception the The applicant was not a party to the action unlimited advantage of the protection leading to the judgment in question. Fur which it provides for these undertakings. ther it may be asked whether the passage in The actual objective of this provision is question is the subject ofa reference by the therefore to prevent the non-Italian under judgment in Case 3/54 to the judgment in takings from competing with the Italian Case 2/54.

This prohibition can on the Transitional Provisions, the Court have a meaning only if in the other coun stated that there was no need to give a de tries of the Community sales below the cision. Finally, the application for an inter prices in the price-lists are allowed by way pretation relates solely to an issue which of exception under special provisions.

Law

1. Admissibility

I. The application, for the bringing of which no time-limit is prescribed, com­ plies with the requirements of Article 77 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.

II. Article 37 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice provides that if the meaning or scope of a judgment is 'in doubt', the Court shall construe it on application by any party or any institution of the Community establishing an interest therein.

Are these conditions fulfilled in the present case?

1. Has the applicant established an interest in the interpretation?

Apart from the institutions of the Community the parties to an action have the right to request an interpretation of the judgment which decides the action. The applicant was a 'party' in Case 3/54 against the High Authority but it is not an interpretation of the judgment given in that action which is sought. The applicant is seeking an interpretation of the judgment given in Case 2/54 (Government of the Italian Republic v High Authority), an action in which the applicant was not a party but the judgment in which is alleged by the applicant to have become an integral part of the judgment given in Case 3/54 which ter­ minated its action. This claim by the applicant is not valid. The judgment in Case 3/54 (Section 2 (1) of the grounds ofjudgment) refers solely to the judgment given in Case 1/54 (French Government v High Authority): it states with reference to Article 1 of Decision No 2/54 of the High Authority that no decision was called for because the judgment in Case 1/54 had already annulled that article for all purposes. The judgment in Case 3/54 refers to case 2/54, Italian Government v High Authority, only in Section 2, Nos 3 and 4 ofthe grounds ofjudgment, but this reference does not relate to the grounds contained in the judgment in Case 2/54 in Section II, No 11 ofthe grounds ofjudgment on the nullity ofArticle 1 ofDecision No 2/54 of the High Authority by reason of infringement of Article 30 of the Convention on the Transitional Provisions. The judgment in Case 3/54 therefore does not refer to these grounds, the interpretation of which is alone in question here. The Court however concurs in principle with the opinion of the Advocate Gen­ eral and recognizes that the applicant is entitled to ask for an interpretation of the judgment in Case 2/54 Italian Government v High Authority for the follow­ ing reasons:

The applicant may therefore be regarded as being a party to the judgment in question.

3. Is the meaning or scope of the judgment 'in doubt'?

According to Article 37 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice, an application for interpretation of a judgment assumes that the meaning or scope of a judgment is in doubt. The term 'in doubt' is general; it is less narrow than the term 'contestation' in the French version of Article 60 of the Statute of the International Court ofJustice. For an application for interpretation to be ad­ missible it is enough that the parties in question give different meanings to the wording of that judgment. This is the position in the present case.

4. Which are the parts of the text of a judgment which may be the subject of interpretation?

It is necessary to define the parts ofthe text of a judgment which may be the sub­ ject of interpretation. Obviously they can only be those which express the de­ cision of the Court on the matter submitted to it: the operative part and such of the grounds as determine it and are essential for that purpose; those are the parts of the judgment which constitute the actual decision. On the other hand, the Court is not called upon to interpret ancillary matter which supplements or explains those basic grounds. In the present case all the grounds stated in Section II, No 11, of the grounds of judgment in Case 2/54 must be regarded as being essential and on this account capable of forming the subject of an interpretation.

ASSIDER v HIGH AUTHORITY

The Court concours with the opinion of the Advocate General in finding that the grounds ofjudgment in question contain no obscurities and that accordingly there is in principle nothing to be interpreted. It appears from the facts set out in the judgment in Case 2/54 and reproduced above that the parties submitted to the Court only the question whether Article 1 of Decision No 2/54 of the High Authority infringed Article 30 of the Con­ vention on the Transitional Provisions because it allowed non-Italian Commu­ nity steel producers to grant discounts on their price-lists on the Italian market. It follows that the Court had before it only the question whether non-Italian steel producers in the Community were not only prevented under Article 30 of the Convention on the Transitional Provisions from aligning their prices on those of Italian producers but were prevented generally from selling on the Italian mar­ ket at prices lower than those set out in their price-lists. The third paragraph ofNo 11 of the grounds ofjudgment, in Section II, explains the objective pursued by Article 30 of the Convention on the Transitional Pro­ visions: according to that paragraph non-Italian undertakings must be prevent­ ed from competing with Italian undertakings on the Italian market by quoting prices lower than those in their price-lists. The following and last paragraph of No 11 of the grounds ofjudgment, which gives reasons for this interpretation ac­ cording to its content and states that not only alignment but generally speaking any quotation lower than the prices contained in the price-lists is unlawful, re­ fers only to the protection of the Italian market against competition by non-Ital­ ian undertakings in the Community: there is a close link between that paragraph of the grounds of judgment and the explanations given in the third paragraph. The High Authority is therefore wrong in thinking that it can find in the judg­ ment in Case 2/54 any justification for its position on the question whether Ar­ ticle 30 (2) ofthe Convention on the Transitional Provisions also prohibits align­ ment by the Italian undertakings inter se or alignment by Italian undertakings on the prices of non-Italian undertakings in the Community. The Court did not have this question before it in Case 2/54 and it did not give a decision on this issue. The judgment in Case 2/54 did not declare that such alignments were al­ lowed; nor did it declare that they were prohibited. This question cannot there­ fore be answered by means of interpretation. For these same reasons the Court cannot accept the second part of the request by the applicant to interpret the judgment in Case 2/54 as meaning that Article 30 (2) of the Convention on the Transitional Provisions does not prevent alignment within the Italian market by the Italian undertakings on the prices of other Italian undertakings or alignment by the Italian undertakings on the prices of other non-Italian undertakings in the Community. In a judgment giving an interpretation the Court can only define the meaning

THE COURT

hereby:

Declares that the scope of the judgment in Case 2/54 is defined in the judg­ ment itself in the third paragraph of No 11 of Part 11 of the grounds of judg­ ment by the words: 'The actual objective of this provision [of the Convention] is therefore to prevent the non-Italian undertakings from competing with the Italian undertakings on the Italian market by undercutting their own price- lists' and that the next paragraph of the judgment refers solely to sales made in Italy by non-Italian undertakings referred to in the said definition, where­ as the question of alignment by Italian undertakings on the prices of other Italian undertakings and alignment by Italian undertakings on the prices of other non-Italian undertakings in the Community is not decided by the judg­ ment in Case 2/54;

ASSIDER v HIGH AUTHORITY

Orders the parties to bear their own costs;

Orders, in accordance with Article 78 of the Rules of Procedure, that the or­ iginal of this judgment be annexed in the files to the original of the judgment interpreted (Case 2/54) and that a note of the interpreting judgment be made in the margin of the original of the judgment interpreted.

Registrar

OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL LAGRANGE1

Mr President, cle 1 of Decision No 2/54, of Article 30 of Members of the Court. the Convention on the Transitional Provi­ sions was well founded. The Court has before it an application by After setting out its point of view, the ap­ the Associazione Industrie Siderurgiche plicant association concludes as follows: Italiane (ASSIDER) for the interpretation of point 11 in Section II of Part A of the 'We are confident that the Court will inter­ grounds under the heading 'Law' of the pret the judgment referred to above as judgment in Case 2/54 (judgment given in meaning that Article 30 (2) of the Conven­ an application by the Italian Government) tion on the Transitional Provisions prohi­ 'to the whole of which' passage, it is bits alignment by non-Italian undertak­ alleged, 'the judgment in Case 3/54 refers' ings on the Italian market; and that, on the (that is to say, the judgment in the action other hand, it does not prohibit within the brought by ASSIDER itself). Italian market alignment by Italian un­ The part of the judgment in Case 2/54 dertakings on the prices ofother Italian un­ which the Court is asked to interpret is that dertakings or alignment by Italian under­ where it was held that the claim by the Ital­ takings on the prices of other non-Italian ian Government of infringement, by Arti­ but Community undertakings.'

1 — Translated from the French