C-9/56

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

Advocate-General: K. Roemer Registrar: A. Van Houte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts

I — Facts and procedure sum of Lit 54 819 656, the decision being, according to Article 2 thereof, 'enforceable By application dated 12 December 1956, en­ within the meaning of Article 92 of the tered in the Court Registry on 14 December Treaty'. under No 1363, the undertaking Meroni & The Meroni company claims that the Court Co. claimed that the decision adopted by should: the High Authority on 24 October 1956 and Stay the execution of the contested deci­ notified to it by post on 12 November 1956 sion; should be annulled. State that the applicant is entitled if neces­ The contested decision declares that the ap­ sary to present evidence and any other plicant is required to pay to the Fund the pleadings;

Declare the contested decision of the High of the Advocate-General, the Court de Authority void and of no effect in law; cided, pursuant to Article 34 (4) of the Order the defendant to bear the costs. Rules of Procedure, to commence the oral The statement of defence, lodged by the procedure without undertaking any mea High Authority on 28 February 1957, con sures of inquiry. tends that the Court should: By order ot the same day, the President ot As a preliminary issue: declare .

by its Agent. Meroni & Co., Industrie Metallurgiche, So The statement of defence, the reply and the cieta per Azioni, Milan, notified to the latter rejoinder were lodged respectively on 27 on 12 November 1956, should be annulled; February, 9 May and 20 June 1957, exten and that sions of time having been requested by the parties and granted by orders of the Presi The defendant should be ordered to bear dent of the Court. the costs pursuant to Article 60 (1) of the On 24 June 1957, by a letter addressed to Rules of Procedure of the Court and the the President of the Court, the defendant case should be referred back to the High lodged two letters addressed by the Camp

countries. signed to the First Chamber. The latter de According to the defendant, the purpose of cided to put certain questions to the parties, the equalization system was 'to prevent the the answers to reach the Registry before 20 prices of ferrous scrap within the Commu August 1957. That period was extended at nity from being aligned on the higher prices the request of the High Authority until 30 of imported ferrous scrap'. Those purposes, September 1957. The answers to the ques thus defined by the representative of the tions were lodged respectively on 19 Au High Authority, are not disputed by the ap gust as regards the applicant and 30 Sep plicant. tember as regards the defendant. The implementation of the system defined After taking note of the answers given by in Decision No 14/55 was entrusted to the the parties, the First Chamber, finding that Office Commun des Consommateurs de some of the answers were inadequate, asked Ferraille (Joint Bureau of Ferrous Scrap the parties to produce supplementary an Consumers hereinafter referred to as 'the swers before 4 November 1957.

MERONI v HIGH AUTHORITY

Between 22 October 1954 and 16 August On 24 October 1956, the High Authority 1956, Campsider (the office representing adopted the decision annulment of which is the Brussels agencies in Italy) periodically claimed by the applicant. sent the Meroni company a provisional ac count showing that Meroni owed the Fund II — Submissions and arguments in Brussels a certain sum. Twenty-six let of the parties ters are annexed to the rejoinder, and their dates show that they were sent out about The submissions and arguments of the par twice a month. ties may be summarized as follows:

Such ac registered letter with acknowledgment of quiescence resulted from the letter sent by receipt reminding it that it had been re the applicant on 12 April 1956. quested, on 4 and 29 March, to send in The applicant undertaking declares that the monthly statistical returns as to its input said objection must be rejected, first be and output of ferrous scrap from 1 January cause it has always taken the trouble to state of the current year. Campsider informed reservations, and secondly because the de the applicant that failure to comply 'would cision of the High Authority alone was en lead to direct intervention on the part of the forceable and open to challenge in court. competent authorities'. Thus any attitude taken up prior to the de On 14 June 1955, Campsider sent a fresh cision of 24 October 1956 must not be taken letter to the applicant informing it that if the into consideration. statistical returns as to its input and output The High Authority considers that the ap of ferrous scrap as called for by the High plication is directed against an individual Authority were not provided, the Fund decision applying a general decision to Mer would proceed to make an estimate on its oni so that the latter cannot pray in aid any own authority of the tonnage of the input of irregularity in the general decision for the

against a general decision. To these argu ity added the letters of 22 May 1954 and 14 ments Meroni replies that the objection of June 1955 to the file four days after the pro illegality is a known and accepted legal con duction of its rejoinder, by letter addressed cept in the legal systems of the Member to the President of the Court. However it States, and, moreover, that it has been in does not seem that there need be any diffi troduced into the Treaty in the third para culty as to their admissibility. graph of Article 36. On 15 July 1955, Campsider sent a fresh reminder to Meroni, asking it to proceed (b) As regards the submission of infringement with the utmost expedition to payment of of procedural requirements and failure to

disregarded when there is no statement of the grounds on which a conviction is based 1. 'An error in the findings as to the import and when, as regards an order to pay, no in prices and as to the average weighted price dication is given of the factual and accoun within the Community . . . is far from being ting data on which the order to pay is established'. based'. As regards this reply, the applicant empha To this argument the defendant replies sizes that it cannot be required to demon first: 'The High Authority adopts the data strate the error in calculation, since it has furnished by the Brussels agencies without not been allowed to see the calculations in being able to add anything thereto.

tive measure. Therefore the reasons which concern the various undertakings only in 3. The existence of a misuse of powers clude those which relate to the application 'would still be irrelevant as regards the an of the general criterion to the particular case nulment of the contested decision. For and the reasons for that application are to be were such a misuse to exist, in order to be found in a simple calculation'. able to contest the decision at issue before the Court, it would be necessary to alter the (c) As regards the submission of manifest fail content thereof and to attribute to it an ef ure to observe the provisions of the Treaty and fect quite different from merely rendering a in particular Article 47, the applicant is of the pre-existing obligation enforceable'. opinion that the High Authority has in fringed Article 47 in that it did not inform The applicant argues that the High Author the applicant 'exactly and within due time ity has committed a second misuse of pow of the precise equalization differential' that ers consisting in the fact of not having 'in it was then required to pay to the Joint tervened effectively at any time', although Bureau. it had committed itself to doing so in Deci As against this assertion, the High Author sion No 14/55 and although the rate of ity points to the second paragraph of the equalization had increased by 1 200% said article according to which it is required The defendant answers this complaint by not to disclose certain information. stating that there was no need 'to abolish the system which (had) certainly proved so (d) As regards the submission of misuse of favourable'. powers, the applicant asserts that the assent of the Council of Ministers was accompan (e) As regards the submission of the irregular ied by 'six precise recommendations' and ity of the lump-sum assessment made by the none of them had been put into effect. Thus Brussels agencies for the period from 1 April the objectives of Decision No 14/55 were 1954 to 30 June 1956, Meroni did not send not attained and this failure resulted from a in the monthly statistical returns as to its in misuse of powers committed by the organ put and output of ferrous scrap, as request izations entrusted with the task of putting ed of it on 4 and 29 March 1954. the equalization system into effect. The applicant considers that such an esti-

Article 33 provides that applications 'shall be instituted witin one month of the notification or publication, as the case may be, of the decision or recommenda­ tion', and that where they are made by undertakings or associations referred to in Article 48, they are only admissible, where they concern a general decision or rec­ ommendation, if the applicants consider the said decisions or recommendations to involve a misuse of powers affecting them. The application was lodged on 14 December 1956 and although, therefore, the time-limit for instituting proceedings laid down in the last paragraph of Article 33 was respected as regards the decision of 24 October 1956, it had expired as regards Decision No 14/55 of 26 March 1955. However, Decision No 14/55 of 26 March 1955 is not contested directly, but in the content of an application against the enforceable decision of 24 October 1956. While the decision of 24 October 1956 is an individual decision concerning the ap­ plicant, Decision No 14/55 of 26 March 1955 is a general decision on which the decision of 24 October 1956 is based.

In assessing whether the applicant is entitled to claim, in support of its application against the individual decision, that the general decision on which it is based is illegal, the question arises whether the applicant may contest the general decision after the expiry of the period laid down in the last paragraph of Article 33, and raise against the said general decision not only misuse of powers affecting itself, but the four grounds of annulment set out in the first paragraph of Article 33. As the Advocate General says in his opinion, an illegal general decision ought not

That provision of Article 36 should not be regarded as a special rule, applicable only in the case of pecuniary sanctions and periodic penalty payments, but as the application of a general principle, applied by Article 36 to the particular case of an action in which the Court has unlimited jurisdiction. No argument can be based on the express statement in Article 36 to the effect that a contrario the application of the rule laid down is excluded in cases in which it has not been expressly stated. For the Court has decided, in its judgment in Case 8/55, that an argument in reverse is only admissible when no other interpretation appears appropriate and compatible with the provision and its context and with the purpose of the same. Any other decision would render it difficult, if not impossible, for the undertak­ ings and associations mentioned in Article 48 to exercise their right to bring actions, because it would oblige them to scrutinize every general decision upon publication thereof for provisions which might later adversely affect them or be considered as involving a misuse of powers affecting them. It would encourage them to let themselves be ordered to pay the pecuniary sanc­ tions or periodic penalty payments for which the Treaty makes provision so as to be able, by virtue of Article 36, to plead the illegality of the general decisions and recommendations which they were alleged not to have observed. An applicant's right, after the expiration of the period prescribed in the last par­ agraph of Article 33, to take advantage of the irregularity of general decisions or recommendations in support of proceedings against decisions or recommenda­ tions which are individual in character cannot lead to the annulment of the gen­ eral decision, but only to the annulment of the individual decision which is based on it.

The fact that the position adopted is the same does not constitute a decisive ar­ gument but confirms the reasoning set out above by showing that the authors of the new Treaties regarded it as compelling. The annulment of an individual decision based on the irregularity of the general decisions on which it is based only affects the effects of the general decision in so far as those effects take concrete shape in the annulled individual decision. To contest an individual decision concerning him, any applicant is entitled to put forward the four grounds of annulment set out in the first paragraph of Article 33. In the circumstances, there is no reason why an applicant who is contesting an individual decision should not be entitled to put forward the four grounds of an­ nulment set out in the first paragraph of Article 33 so as to question the legality of the general decisions and recommendations on which the individual decision is based.

(I) Failure to state reasons

The applicant sees 'a manifest lack of reasons' in the decision of 24 October 1956. The decision contains only the two following reasons:

JUDGMENT OF 13. 6. 1958 —CASE 9/56

'Whereas the limited company Meroni & Co., Industrie Metallurgiche, Stabili­ mento Elettrosiderurgico, Via della Cebrosa, Settimo Torinese, an undertaking within the meaning of Article 80 of the Treaty, has failed to pay to the Imported Ferrous Scrap Equalization Fund the contributions due for ferrous scrap imported after 1 April 1954 in conformity with the decisions mentioned above; Whereas the contributions due for the period from 1 April 1954 to 30 June 1956 amount to the sum of Lit 54 819 656.'

Taking into account the case-law of the Court, those two paragraphs cannot con­ stitute a statement of the considerations of law and of fact upon which the deci­ sion of 24 October 1956 is based. It therefore lacks the supporting reasons indispensable for the exercise of judicial review.

MERONI v HIGH AUTHORITY

To be legal, the statement of the reasons for the decision of 24 October 1956 ought to have included an exact and detailed statement of all the individual items com­

prised in the claim, payment of which was made enforceable by the decision. Only an account of that kind could make possible a review of the said decision by the Court. The reasons on which the decision of 24 October 1956 is based have not been sufficiently stated to comply with the law either by the High Authority in the text notified to the applicant or by the Fund in the notices to pay which the latter ad­ dressed to it. This failure to state reasons in connexion with the decision of 24 October 1956 constitutes an infringement of an essential procedural requirement. Therefore, in application of Article 33 of the Treaty, that decision must be annulled.

(II) Assessment by the Fund on its own authority

The notices to pay addressed by the Fund to Meroni all contain the following statement: 'Where details for each factory as to tonnage assessable are not re­ ceived by the 15th day of the second month following the month to which the as­ sessment relates, the managers are authorized to proceed to make lump-sum esti­ mates with the help of the regional offices'. However, the decision of 24 October 1956 does not state that the claim for payments rests on this basis and does not mention the provisions allegedly giving the Fund the power to make an assess­ ment on its own authority in the case of a failure to make a return. In so far as the obligation which it enforces arises from a lump-sum estimate, the decision of 24 October 1956 did not state the reasons on which it was based. That failure to state reasons, which leaves the applicant in the dark as to the cir­ cumstances in which its debt was calculated, constitutes an infringement of an essential procedural requirement. For this reason also, in application of Article 33 of the Treaty, the decision of 24 October 1956 must be annulled.

JUDGMENT OF 13. 6. 1958 —CASE 9/56

Second submission: manifest failure to observe the provisions of the Treaty

In this second submission, the applicant complains that the High Authority:

(a) did not inform it of 'the objective data on which the Italian undertakings were assessed, in manifest contradiction with Article 47 of the Treaty, which provides that the High Authority 'shall publish such data as could be useful to governments or to any other parties concerned';

In the rejoinder, the High Authority has retorted to the applicant that it is 'required to show an elementary respect for professional secrecy'. In the present case, information collected by cooperative bodies representing at certain periods, and in particular on 4 July 1955, up to 136 undertakings chosen from amongst the larger of the 240 undertakings assessable to the equalization levy cannot be regarded as secret within the meaning of Article 47 of the Treaty. In failing to publish the reasons for its actions, at least in general terms, and in failing to publish the data not covered by professional secrecy and of possible use to governments or to any other parties concerned, or in failing to require the Brus­ sels agencies to publish the same, the High Authority has infringed Articles 5 and 47 of the Treaty.

MERONI v HIGH AUTHORITY

For this reason also, in application of Article 33 of the Treaty, the decision of 24 October 1956 must be annulled.

(II) The provisional nature of the notices to pay addressed to the applicant

The applicant complains that the High Authority based the decision of 24 October 1956 on provisional accounts, and that the Fund has, up to the date of the appli­ cation, namely 18 months after the system was introduced, never sent it definitive accounts.

It asks 'whether it can honestly be claimed that an undertaking can succeed in re­ liably working out its own price-list if it is not informed accurately and in due time of its equalization debt'. As against the applicant's requirement, the defendant puts forward the very nature of the concept of equalization, which requires 'an a posteriori calculation' implying knowledge of the factual data in respect of which equalization is to be effected.

JUDGMENT OF 13. 6. 1958 —CASE 9/56

of the facts and created a situation in which the effects of the system were not the same for all the interested parties, some of whom benefited, whereas others conversely suffered loss'. The applicant has itself admitted 'that it is not in a position to prove its doubts', 'that it still does not know how the import operations were carried out and what was the weighted average rate which was calculated'. It is not possible to examine whether the applicant s allegations are well founded, in view of the inadequacy of the reasons stated for the decision of 24 October 1956 and the lack of information on the factors used by the Brussels agencies in their calculations.

However, for the purposes of the present application, that examination is not necessary, because the inadequacy of the reasons stated and the failure to publish the data on which the decision of 24 October 1956 is based constitute of themselves infringements of the Treaty of a nature such as to bring about the annulment of the said decision.

(II) Infringement of the recommendations which the Council of Ministers allegedly appended to its unanimous assent in respect of Decision No 14/55

The applicant claims that the High Authority did not observe six recommenda­ tions which the Council of Ministers appended to the assent which it gave in re­ spect of Decision No 14/55. Journal Officiel No 8 of 30 March 1955, p. 689, only indicates that the said assent was 'given unanimously in the terms set out in the minutes of the proceedings of the Council'.

The minutes of the Council of Ministers are not published. Six principles laid down by the Council of Ministers and the High Authority dur­ ing the meeting of the Council of Ministers of 21 and 22 March 1955, being prin­ ciples 'on which general policy in the matter of ferrous scrap is to be based', were published in the Third General Report on the Activities of the Community (p. 105) and those six principles appear to be the ones which the applicant has in mind. However, for the purposes of the present application, it is not necessary to examine the legal consequences which principles published in those circumstances may in­ volve, because for the reasons mentioned above the decision of 24 October 1956 must be annulled.

The recital stating that 'the High Authority is responsible for the proper function of the financial arrangements and thus must be in a position to intervene effec­ tively at any moment'; Article 1, which states that: 'The operation of the aforesaid arrangements under the responsibility of the High Authority shall be given to the Joint Bureau of Fer­ rous Scrap Consumers (hereinafter referred to as "the Joint Bureau") and to the Imported Ferrous Scrap Equalization Fund (hereinafter referred to as "the Fund")'; The second paragraph of Article 4, which provides that 'if payment is not effected in due time, the Fund shall request the High Authority to intervene, when the latter may' (not 'must') 'take an enforceable decision'; Article 8, which provides that: The High Authority shall appoint a permanent representative and his deputy to work with the Joint Bureau and the Fund. The permanent representative or his deputy shall attend all meetings of the Admin­ istrative Council and of the General Assembly of the Joint Bureau and of the Fund. The permanent representative or his deputy shall forward immediately to the High Authority the decisions taken by the bodies mentioned above and shall inform the High Authority concerning all matters calling for a ruling by it under Article 9 below'; Article 9, which states that: 'The decisions of the Joint Bureau and of the Fund shall be adopted unanimously by the respective Boards in regard to matters falling

JUDGMENT OF 13. 6. 1958 CASE 9/56

'The High Authority adopts the data furnished by the Brussels agencies without being able to add anything thereto. Any other specific explanations would mean unauthorized interference in another body's powers for the purpose of explaining the factors involved in the elaboration of its decisions ... The prices of imports, the qualities of the ferrous scrap imported and the weighted average price within the Community are factors which the Brussels agencies take into consideration in order to fix the equalization rate. The contested decision does no more than re­ produce the result of the application by those agencies of the equalization rate to the applicant. Thus if it were to be admitted that the error of which it complains can constitute a misuse of powers, that misuse of powers was committed during deliberations of the equalization agencies which the High Authority can no longer contest in view of the fact that its representative on the Brussels agencies did not reserve the final decision to the High Authority under Article 9 of Decisions Nos 22/54 and 14/55. For it is beyond the bounds of reason to suppose that a decision of the competent agencies in Brussels, once adopted unanimously and without reservations on the part of the representative of the High Authority, remains ex­ posed to possible changes imposed unilaterally by the High Authority alone. The fact that the unanimous consent of all the members of the deliberating agencies

MERONI v HIGH AUTHORITY

(b) Details of the application of Decision No 14/55

If the High Authority had itself exercised the powers the exercise of which is con­ ferred by Decision No 14/55 on the Brussels agencies, those powers would have been subject to the rules laid down by the Treaty and in particular those which impose upon the High Authority:

The duty to state reasons for its decisions and to refer to any opinions which were required to be obtained (Article 15); The duty to publish annually a general report on its activities and its administra­ tive expenses (Article 17); The duty to publish such data as could be useful to governments or to any other parties concerned (Article 47).

On the same supposition, its decisions and recommendations would have been subject to review by the Court of Justice on the conditions laid down by Article 33.

Decision No 14/55 did not make the exercise of the powers which it conferred

JUDGMENT OF 13. 6. 1958 -CASE 9/56

MER0NI v HIGH AUTHORITY

Any procedure for assessment by a body on its own authority and for provisional estimates must be subject to precise rules so as to exclude any arbitrary decisions and to render it possible to review the data used. A delegation of powers cannot be presumed and even when empowered to dele­ gate its powers the delegating authority must take an express decision transferring them.

There is no legal basis for the Brussels agencies' assessment on their own authority or for the notification of provisional debts and for this reason also the decision of 24 October 1956, which is an enforceable decision in respect of obligations arising from a procedure lacking any legal foundation, must be annulled.

(c) Extent of the delegation of powers

The applicant complains that the High Authority has, by its Decision No 14/55, delegated to the Brussels agencies powers which they are ill-qualified to exercise. Article 8 of the Treaty requires the High Authority

'to ensure that the objectives set out in this Treaty are attained in accordance with the provisions thereof

must permanently reconcile any conflict which may be implied by these objectives when considered individually, and when such conflict arises must grant such pri­ ority to one or other of the objectives laid down in Article 3 as appears necessary having regard to the economic facts or circumstances in the light of which it adopts its decisions. Reconciling the various objectives laid down in Article 3 implies a real discretion involving difficult choices, based on a consideration of the economic facts and cir­ cumstances in the light of which those choices are made. The consequences resulting from a delegation of powers are very different de­ pending on whether it involves clearly defined executive powers the exercise of which can, therefore, be subject to strict review in the light of objective criteria determined by the delegating authority, or whether it involves a discretionary power, implying a wide margin of discretion which may, according to the use which is made of it, make possible the execution of actual economic policy. A delegation of the first kind cannot appreciably alter the consequences involved in the exercise of the powers concerned, whereas a delegation of the second kind, since it replaces the choices of the delegator by the choices of the delegate, brings about an actual transfer of responsibility. In any event under Article 53 as regards the execution of the financial arrange­ ments mentioned therein, it is only the delegation of those powers 'necessary for the performance of the tasks set out in Article 3' which may be authorized. Such delegations of powers, however, can only relate to clearly defined executive powers, the use of which must be entirely subject to the supervision of the High Authority. The objectives set out in Article 3 are binding not only on the High Authority, but on the 'institutions of the Community ... within the limits of their respective powers, in the common interest'. From that provision there can be seen in the balance of powers which is charac­ teristic of the institutional structure of the Community a fundamental guarantee granted by the Treaty in particular to the undertakings and associations of under­ takings to which it applies. To delegate a discretionary power, by entrusting it to bodies other than those which the Treaty has established to effect and supervise the exercise of such power each within the limits of its own authority, would render that guarantee ineffective. In the light of the criteria set out above, it is appropriate to examine whether the delegation of powers granted by the High Authority to the Brussels agencies by virtue of Decision No 14/55 satisfies the requirements of the Treaty. Article 5 of Decision No 14/55 provides that:

(e) the criteria for calculating economy in scrap due to an increased use of pig- iron;

(0 the amount of the bonus to be granted in regard to these economies.'

The Third General Report on the Activities of the Community published (p. 105) the general principles drawn up by the Council of Ministers and the High Author­ ity 'on which the general policy in the matter of ferrous scrap is to be based'. Those general principles state in the particular that

'The cost of ferrous scrap for the producer of steel—that is to say the sum of the purchase price and the equalization levy—must not exceed a reasonable level in comparison with the level in fact borne by producers of steel in the principal competitor countries. In order to prevent cost prices from becoming too high in the Community as a whole, and in particular to prevent the net charge borne as a result of the func­ tioning of the Fund in certain regions of the Community from being increased, the amount of the equalization levy must not be increased without due cause. The effort made to encourage imports and a reasonable level of prices must not lead to an improvident increase in the consumption of ferrous scrap either in ex­ isting plant or by the creation of new plant.

So far as is technically and economically possible, and to the extent to which other raw materials may be available, every effort should be made to reduce the con­ sumption of ferrous scrap by an increased use of pig-iron.'

Several proposals which, under the above-mentioned Article 5, the competent of­ fice must submit to the Fund, in particular the fixing of the 'maximum import price', the 'equalization price', the 'criteria for the calculation of economy in scrap' and the 'amount of the bonus to be granted for such economies' cannot be the result of mere accountancy procedures based on objective criteria laid down by the High Authority.

'Where no unanimous decision is taken by the Boards of the Joint Bureau and the Fund, ... the decision shall be taken by the High Authority.'

Article 9 of Decision No 14/55 of the High Authority gives its permanent repre­ sentative on the Brussels agencies the power to make any decision subject to the approval of the High Authority. In reserving to itself the power to refuse its approval, the High Authority has not retained sufficient powers for the delegation resulting from Decision No 14/55 to be contained within the limits defined above. In the paragraph of the statement of defence set out above the High Authority has made it clear that it 'adopts the data furnished by the Brussels agencies without being able to add anything thereto'. In those circumstances the delegation of powers granted to the Brussels agencies by Decision No 14/55 gives those agencies a degree of latitude which implies a wide margin of discretion and cannot be considered as compatible with the re­ quirements of the Treaty. The decision of 24 October 1956 is based on a general decision which is unlawful from the point of view of the Treaty and it must, for this reason also, be annulled.

Costs

The defendant has failed in all its submissions. Under Article 60 (1) ot the Rules of Procedure of the Court, the unsuccessful party shall be ordered to pay the costs.

MERONI v HIGH AUTHORITY

Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the parties; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to Articles 3, 5, 15, 17, 33, 36, 47, 53, 80 and 92 of the Treaty ; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court and to the Rules of the Court concerning costs; Having regard to Decisions Nos 22/54 of 26 March 1954 and 14/55 of 26 March 1955 of the High Authority which establish a financial arrangement for ferrous scrap imported from third countries,

Serrarens Riese Rueff Hammes

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 13 June 1958.

M. Pilotti J. Rueff President Judge-Rapporteur A. Van Houtte Registrar

OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE-GENERAL ROEMER

(See p. 177)