C-5/60
ECLI:EU:C:1961:10
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61960CJ0005
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 1 JUNE 1961 1
Meroni & Co., Acciaieria Ferriera di Roma (FERAM) and Societa Industriale Metallurgica di Napoli (SIMET) v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community
Joined Cases 5, 7 and 8/60
Summary Costs — Costs incurred unreasonably (Rules of Procedure, Art 69 (3))
If, after a fact has arisen, one of the parties action, the subsequent costs of the action to legal proceedings no longer has an in are to be considered as costs unreasonably terest in them and decides to continue the incurred and shall be borne by that party.
In Joined Cases 5, 7 and 8/60
(1) Meroni & Co., a company limited by shares incorporated under Italian law, having its registered office in Milan (Case 5/60), represented by Aldo Meroni, engineer, sole Director,
(2) Acciaieria Ferriera Di Roma (Feram ), a company limited by shares incor porated under Italian law, having its registered office in Naples (Case 7/60), represented by Aldo Alliata, Chairman of the Board of Directors,
(3) SOCIETÀ INDUSTRIALE METALLURGICA DI NAPOLI (SIMET), a company limited by shares, having its registered office in Naples (Case 8/60), represented by Alberto Ummarino, Chairman of the Board of Directors,
each of the said companies having an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Georges Margue, Advocate, 6 rue Alphonse-Munchen; assisted by Arturo Cottrau, Advocate at the Turin Bar and with the Corte di Cas sazione, Rome;
applicants, v
High Authority of the Coal and Steel Community , represented by its Legal Adviser, Professor Giulio Pasetti, assisted by Alberto Trabucchi, Professor at Padua University, with an address for service in Luxembourg at his offices, 2 place de Metz,
defendant,
JUDGMENT OF 1. 6. 1961-JOINED CASES 5, 7 AND 8/60
Application:
1. By the first applicant for the annulment of the decision of the High Authority of 28 October 1959 ordering it to pay the sum of Lit. 3 358 438 by way of equaliza tion for the months of October and November 1958, together with interest for delay in payment calculated up to 30 September 1959, amounting to Lit. 76 713.
2. By the second applicant for the annulment of the decision of the High Authority of 28 October 1959 ordering it to pay the sum of Lit. 4 627 750 by way of equalization for the months of August to November 1958, together with interest for delay in payment amounting to Lit. 127 244.
3. By the third applicant for the annulment of the decision of the High Authority of 28 October 1959 ordering it to pay the sum of Lit. 6 988 825 by way of equalization for the months of July to November 1958, together with interest for delay in payment amounting to Lit. 215 513.
THE COURT
composed of: A.M. Donner, President, Ch. L. Hammes and N. Catalano, Presi dents of Chambers, O. Riese, L. Delvaux (Rapporteur), J. Rueff and R. Rossi Judges,
Advocate-General: M. Lagrange Registrar: A. Van Houtte
gives the following
JUDGMENT
Issues of fact and of law
I— Conclusions of the parties (b) Annul the decision of the High Authority of 28 October 1959 ordering The first applicant (Case 5/60) claims: the applicant to pay the sum of Lit. 3 358 438 by way of equalization of fer 'Subject to the right, if necessary, to rous scrap for the months of October produce further documents, to ask the and November, together with interest Court to prescribe further measures of in for delay in payment of Lit. 76 713 quiry and to submit new arguments if it calculated to 30 September 1959; deems it advisable to do so, that the Court, (c) Declare alternatively that there is in after it has rejected every preliminary objec fact no such claim as the one made by tion, should, the High Authority in its contested deci (a) Declare that this application is admis sion in that (even if it is admitted sible; without any reservation that there is
MERONI v HIGH AUTHORITY
such a claim) it is more than offset by 'That the Court of Justice of the European the applicant's claim which is li Communities, after rejecting every contrary quidated, payable, not disputed and for conclusion, objection or argument, should a much greater amount; 1. Declare that the three applications are (d) Order the defendant to pay the costs. admissible; The second applicant (Case 7/60) claims: 2. Pursuant to Article 23 of the Protocol on
'Subject to the right, if necessary, to the Statute of the Court of Justice of the produce further documents, to ask the European Coal and Steel Community Court to prescribe further measures of in order the defendant to produce the docu quiry and to submit new arguments if it ments and reports on the basis of which deems it advisable to do so, that the Court, the weighted average of the prices of im after it has rejected every preliminary objec ported scrap and scrap treated as such tion, should, and also of the price of domestic (a) Declare that this application is admis recovered scrap was fixed; 3. Declare that there is no statement of the sible; (b) Annul the decisions of the High reasons upon which Decisions Nos 20 to Authority of 28 October 1959, served 58 of the High Authority, and conse on the applicant by registered letters of quently the individual decisions chal 22 February 1960 numbered 63 575 lenged by the applicants, are based; 4. In addition annul the contested decisions and 63 576 respectively, ordering the applicant to pay the sum of Lit. on the grounds of infringement of an es 4 627 750 by way of equalization of sential procedural requirement, infringe ferrous scrap for the months of July, ment of the Treaty and misuse of August September, October and powers;
November 1958, together with interest 5. Declare alternatively, and only if it thereon amounting to Lit. 127 244; should be necessary, that there is no such (c) Order the defendant to pay the costs.' claim as the one made by the High Authority in the contested decisions, The third applicant (Case 8/60) claims: because, even if it is admitted without 'Subject to the right, if necessary, to any reservation that there is such a produce further documents, to ask the claim, it has been offset by the appli Court to prescribe further measures of in cant's claim which is liquidated, payable, quiry and to submit new arguments if it not disputed and in the amount as the deems it advisable to do so, that the Court, High Authority's claim; after it has rejected every preliminary objec 6. Order the defendant to pay the costs.' tion, should, The defendant (with reference to Joined (a) Declare that this application is admissi ble; Cases 5, 7 and 8/60) contends that the Court should: (b) Annul the decisions of the High '1. Reject each and every claim made in the Authority of 28 October 1959, served applications lodged by the companies on the applicant by registered letters of 22 February 1960 numbered 63 880 Meroni & Co., Milan (Case 5/60), FERAM, Rome (Case 7/60) and and 63 881 respectively, ordering the SIMET, Naples (Case 8/60); applicant to pay the sum of Lit. 6 988 825 by way of equalization of 2. Order the applicant companies to pay the costs and fees.' ferrous scrap for the months of July, August, September, October and II—Facts November 1958, together with interest thereon amounting to Lit. 215 513; The principal facts of this dispute may be (c) Order the defendant to pay the costs. summarized as follows: The three applicant companies in their reply By its judgments of 13 June 1958 in Case claim: 9/56 brought by Meroni & Co., Milan, (the
JUDGMENT OF 1. 6. 1961-JOINED CASES 5, 7 AND 8/60
applicant in Case 5/60) and Case 10/56 which the contested individual decisions are
brought by Meroni & Co., Erba, the Court based. annulled the individual decisions of the On 18 May 1960 the Court ordered that the High Authority for enforcing the recovery three cases 5/60, 7/60 and 8/60 should be of equalization contributions. In the dealt with jointly. grounds of these judgments the Court held By its decisions of 27 October 1960, which it that the High Authority had unlawfully served on the applicants on the same day, delegated powers to the Caisse de Péréqua the High Authority revoked the five in tion des Ferrailles Importees (Imported Fer dividual decisions of 28 October 1959 which rous Scrap Equalization Fund) and to the are the subject-matter of the present ap Office Commun des Consommateurs de Fer
plications. raille (Joint Bureau of Ferrous Scrap Con The recitals in the preamble to the decisions sumers). Consequently the High Authority revoking the said individual decisions show announced in its Decision No 13/58 of 24 that it seems to be advisable to incorporate July 1958 (JO of 30.7, 1958) that it would the debts of the applicant companies within itself exercise the powers previously the wider framework of an individual deci delegated to the Caisse de Perequation and sion including all the contributions payable the Office Commun. by way of capital and interest on the basis of The applications for the annulment of the the factors and criteria arising out of Deci said Decision No 13/58 lodged by the two sions Nos 18/60, 19/60, 20/60 and 21/60 companies Meroni (Milan) and Meroni (Er and that there is no question of releasing the ba) and by three other Italian iron and steel companies in question from the obligation undertakings were dismissed by the judg to pay their equalization contributions. ment given by the Court in Joined Cases 36, By a letter of 3 December 1960 to the
37, 38,40 and 41/58. Registrar of the Court the applicants The High Authority served the applicants nevertheless gave notice of their intention to Meroni and FERAM on 22 February 1960 carry on the proceedings which they had and the applicant SIMET on 29 February commenced. 1960 with the decisions of 28 October 1959 The High Authority notified the Court on confirming that they were liable to pay by 13 January 1961 that 'since the action has way of equalization for imported scrap and ceased to have any purpose, because the scrap treated as such the following amounts contested decisions have been revoked, the respectively:
High Authority offers to pay the costs of the 1. Meroni: Lit. 3 358 438 for the months opposite party up to the date when the revocation was notified, but calls attention October and November 1958 together with interest amounting to Lit. 76 713 to the fact that in any event the subsequent for delay in payment; costs, including the costs incurred by the 2. FERAM: Lit. 4 627 750 for the months High Authority, will be claimed from the applicants'.
August to November 1958 together with interest amounting to Lit. 127 244 for The applicants replied on 28 February 1961 'that it is for the Court of Justice to decide delay in payment; 3. SIMET: Lit. 6 988 825 for the months whether there is any point in continuing the July to November 1958 together with oral procedure and that they leave it to the Lit. 215 513 for delay in payment. Court to make this decision'.
They ask that in any event the High Authority be ordered Meroni (Case 5/60), FERAM (Case 7/60) to pay the whole of the costs including the and SIMET (case 8/60) lodged their ap costs incurred after the date when the deci plications for the annulment of the sions were revoked. abovementioned individual decisions on 30 III—Procedure March 1960, 4 April 1960 and 7 April 1960
respectively. In these applications they plead The procedure in each of the cases in ques the illegality of the general decisions upon tion took the normal course.
MERONI v HIGH AUTHORITY
Grounds of judgment
The High Authority submits that by reason of the revocation of the contested decisions the action no longer has any purpose.
The applicants reply that it is for the Court to decide the question whether the ef fect of the revocation by the defendant of the contested decisions is that the action is without purpose.
Since the contested decisions have been revoked they have become inapplicable.
Therefore, the applications now have no purpose.
Consequently there is no ground for proceeding to judgment.
Costs
The defendant offers to pay the costs up to the date of revocation of the contested decisions and asks for the costs incurred subsequent to the said revocation to be borne by the applicants.
The applicants ask that the High Authority be ordered to pay the whole of the costs of the action.
Under Article 69 (5) of the Rules of Procedure where a case does not proceed to judgment the costs shall be in the discretion of the Court.
Under Article 69 (4) the costs should in principle be borne by the High Authority.
Nevertheless the costs incurred by the parties since the notification of the revoca tion of the contested decisions could have been avoided if the applicants had discon tinued their applications at that time.
When the applicants were informed that the contested decisions had been revoked they were not bound to discontinue their applications.
However, from that moment onwards they no longer had an interest in continuing the proceedings; it would have been much more to their advantage to discontinue their applications.
Because they had no such interest, the costs incurred after the notification of the decisions revoking the individual decisions must be considered as costs which have
OPINION OF MR LAGRANGE—JOINED CASKS 5, 7 AND 8/60
been unreasonably incurred within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 69 (3) of the Rules of Procedure and must therefore be borne by the applicants.
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 Article 33 of the Treaty establishing 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. Declares that there is no ground for proceeding to judgment;
2. Orders that the High Authority shall bear the costs with the exception of the costs incurred after the notification of the decisions revoking the individual decisions which shall be borne by the applicants.
Donner Hammes Catalano
Riese Delvaux Rueff Rossi
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 1 June 1961.
A. Van Houtte A. M. Donner
Registrar President
OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE-GENERAL LAGRANGE
DELIVERED ON 20 APRIL 19611
Mr President, and ordering these companies to pay out Members of the Court, standing sums in respect of equalization of imported ferrous scrap together with in Each of the three applicant companies, terest for delay in payment. On 18 May Meroni, FERAM and SIMET, appealed by 1960 the Court ordered that the three cases separate applications against the decisions should be dealt with jointly. of the High Authority of 28 October 1959 The written procedure followed the normal taken pursuant to Article 92 of the Treaty course up to and including the lodging of
1 — Translated from the French.