Súdny dvor Európskej únie·Rozsudok·16.12.1963

C-36/62

ECLI:EU:C:1963:57

Súd: Súdny dvor Európskej únie
IČS: 61962CJ0036
Zdroj: eur-lex.europa.eu ↗

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 16 DECEMBER 1963

Société des Aciéries du Temple v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community

Case 36/62

Summary

Wrongful act or omission inducing error on the part of a party concerned—

Resulting injury—Direct causality—Criteria

(ECSC Treaty, Article 40)

The existence of a direct relationship duct induced an error on the part of

of cause and effect between conduct of a person concerned presupposes that

the administration a such conduct could and should cause constituting wrongful act or omission and injury such an error in the mind of a prudent

resulting from the fact that con- such person.

In Case 36/62

Société des Aciéries du Temple , a limited company having its registered office at (Seine), represented by its general managing director in Billancourt

office, Eúgène de Seze, assisted by Jean de Richemont, advocate of the Cour

d'Appel, Paris, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Georges Margue, 20 rue Philippe -

II,

applicant,

High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community, represented by its Legal Adviser, Italo Telchini, acting as Agent, assisted by Jean Coutard, advocate at the Conseil d'Etat, Paris, with an address for service in Luembourg at its offices, 2 Place de Metz,

defendant,

Application for reparation for injury caused by an alleged wrongful act or omission on the part of the defendant;

1 — Language of the Case: French. 2 — CMLR.

JUDGMENT OF 16. 12. 1963 — CASE 36/62

THE COURT

composed of: A. M. Dormer, President, Ch. L. Hammes and A. Trabucchi (Presidents of Chambers), L. Delvaux, R. Rossi, R. Lecourt and W. StrauВ (Rapporteur), Judges,

Advocate-Gneral: M. Lagrange Registra: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Facts tion to pay contributions extended also

to the supply of ferrous scrap between The facts may be summarized as undertakings forming a group, and the folows: O.C.C.F. put a question on this point

1. By Decisions 22/54 (Official Journal, to the defendant. The latter replied by 1954, pp. 286 et seq.), 14/55 (Official letter of 18 December 1957 (Official Journal, 1955, pp. 685 et seq.) and Journal of 1 February 1958, pp. 45/58 2/57 (Official Journal, pp. 61/57 et et seq.) to the effect that only ferrous seq.), the defendant the 'recovered by (the equaliza set up scrap undertaking) tion scheme to which Community itself on its own premises bearing the

be name'

undertakings which were consumers of same company could con

ferrous scrap were required to pay con sidered as 'own resources'; the same

tributions. Under Article 3 of Decision basic concept should therefore continue beginning'

22/54, contributions were payable on to be used which 'from the implication' 'the tonnage of ferrous scrap bought the O.C.C.F. had 'by ... by each undertaking whether within adopted.

the Community or imported from third 3. Previously, however, the O.C.C.F. countries', described briefly in Article 3 and the C.P.F.I. had granted exemp

of Decision 14/55 and Article 4 of tions to the undertakings Breda Decision 2/57 as 'bought ferrous scrap'. Siderurgica and Hoogovens for ferrous The last of these provisions also used scrap which these undertakings received

for the first time the expression 'own from certain other companies with

in they formed a group; High resources'

the sense that these were which the

exempted from the contribution. Authority's representative at the

2. The agencies charged with carrying O.C.C.F. and the C.P.F.I. had made

out these Decisions, the Office Commun reservations on this point.

des consommateurs de ferraille In the letter of 18 December 1957 the (O.C.C.F.) (Joint Bureau of Ferrous defendant withdrew these reservations.

Scrap Consumers) and the Caisse de In another letter to the O.C.C.F. of 17 perequation de la ferraille importée April 1958 (Official Journal pp. 30/58 (C.P.F.I.) (Imported Ferrous Scrap et seq.) it gave the following reason for Equalization Fund), set up in Brussels, its atttude: 'Although organic links had doubts as to how far the obliga- exist between the companies, . . . the

ACIÉRIES DU TEMPLE v HIGH AUTHORITY

sole criterion determining the grant of (Case 49/59 of 31 October 1959) is that local integra defendant in exemptions of against the resulted the

tion'. judgment of 22 February 1961 (Rec. 4. By letter ot 19 October 1956 1961, pp. 109 et seq.) (hereinafter addressed to the defendant, the Société referred to as 'the second SNUPAT nouvelle des usines de Pontlieue—

judgment'), which annulled the implied Aciéries du Temple (SNUPAT), of refusal to withdraw with retroactive

which the present applicant is the effect the above-mentioned exemptions

successor, had asked whether it was, on the ground that this was also a case

from 'group ferrous scrap'

as seemed reasonable, exempted of subject to pay

the payment of contribution for those ment of the contribution.

quantities of ferrous scrap which it 6. Thereupon, the defendant withdrew

received from Régie Renault; it did not the two exemptions with retroactive

receive any reply to this letter. On 31 effect. By judgment of 12 July 1962 March 1958, the company presented a (Rec. 1962, pp. 492 et seq.), the Court request for exemption which was by dismissed the application made by implication rejected; in fact, the C.P.F.I. Hoogovens against that Decision (Case requested the applicant to pay its con 14/61, hereinafter referred to as 'the tribution for the ferrous scrap in Hoogovens judgment'); in that case the question. In its applications Nos 32 present applicant intervened in support

and 33/58 made against these measures of the High Authority, the defendant on 30 June 1958, the applicant ex in the case.

pressed the view that the limitation of 7. On 28 December 1962 the Société the exemptions to cases of 'local integra des Aciéries du Temple made the tion'

was arbitrary and too narrow. It present application for compensation. referred to its close links with Régie Renault in the organizational, com II — Conclusions of the mercial and financial fields, noting parties

especially that: The applicant claims that the Court (i) its factories had originally formed a division which was legally depen should :

dent on Renault and the separation apply Article 40 of the Treaty and

was for tax order the High Authority to pay the only purposes; applicant company the sum of 1 500 000 (u) 99.77 per cent of its shares were

held by Renault; NFrs by way of compensation for a

(iii) it received its ferrous scrap wrongful act or omission infringing from Régie Renault Articles 3(b), 4(b) and 53 (b) of the exclusively which, for its part, used almost all Treaty and the basic Decisions establish

of the steel produced by the ing the financial arrangements for equalization; alternatively, order an applicant.

In its 17 1959 (Rec. assessment to be made by one or more judgment of July experts to determine the exact amount 1958-1959, pp. 282 et seq.) (hereinafter referred to as 'the first SNUPAT of the damage suffered; order the High

judgment'), the Court rejected Authority to pay the costs and expenses proceedings.'

SNUPAT's point of view and ruled of the

The defendant contends that the Court 'group ferrous scrap'

generally that was should: subject to payment of the contributions;

this judgment included no pronounce 'dismiss the application and subsequent

ment with regard to the exemption of request for an expert assessment as un

Breda Siderurgica and Hoogovens. founded and order the applicant to pay 5. A by SNUPAT costs.'

new application the

JUDGMENT OF 16. 12. 1963 — CASE 36/62

III — Submissions and argu legality of a decision taken by the High ments of the parties Authority cannot be made the subject of an action for liability arising out of a The submission and arguments of the wrongful act or omission on the part

parties may be summarized as folows: of that body. The applicant states that it does not

1. Wrongful act or omission intend to question either the legality of the basic Decisions taken by the A —

Generally defendant or the case-law of the Court. The applicant maintains that the Court It only the manner in which criticizes

found the High Authority to have acted these Decisions have been applied, and

illegally. Any error of law is basically the fact that, when considered in con

unjustifiable and therefore amounts to junction with the circumstances of the

a wrongful act or The wrong their suggests an inter omission. case, wording ful act or omission arises also from the pretation different from that finally defendant's infringement of 'an given by the Court, and that this fact established and still existing'

right of led the undertakings concerned into the that treat applicant, of equality of error.

ment with all parties who pay contributions. B Failure basic Decisions — of the to The defendant have group ferrous should used solve the problem of economic and not solely legal criteria scrap in determining which ferrous scrap was subject to the contribution. As the The applicant considers that the con

its decisions was to influence 'bought ferrous scrap'

purpose of cepts of and Community' the ferrous scrap market, movements 'within the used in these

of ferrous scrap which could not have Decisions should have led the parties

any repercussions on the market because concerned to consider that only ferrous they took place between undertakings scrap purchased on the market was

forming a group ought to have been subject to the contribution, particularly exempted. The defendant replies that since none of the voluntary equalization

these complaints related to the legality schemes set up by the undertakings

of decisions taken by the defendant sub consuming ferrous scrap before the

jecting group scrap to the contribution, establishment of the obligatory scheme

and therefore also the case-law of the in question had included group ferrous Court which had approved this principle. scrap. Moreover, the term 'group Only the exemptions granted to ferrous scrap'

appears for the first time

Hoogovens and Breda Siderurgica were in the defendant's Decisions taken after

illegal. This error is, however, not the first SNUPAT judgment was given.

unjustifiable. The Hoogovens judgment The question also arises whether

expressly declared that there was no delivery contracts made between closely-

wrongful act or omission in the attitude linked undertakings are not contracts

of the defendant up to the second of exchange rather than contracts of

SNUPAT judgment, even though sale. Although this problem was raised

Hoogoven's position at that time was by these Decisions, they have provided more unfavourable than that of the no solution to it. applicant whose requests for exemption The defendant replies that, like the

had from the beginning been rejected O.C.C.F. and the C.P.F.I., it has by the defendant. always been opposed to the exemption

Furthermore, the precedents set by the of group ferrous scrap. It is not aware

Court show that questions as to the which earlier equalization arrangements

ACIERIES DU TEMPLE v HIGH AUTHORITY

the applicant has in mind, but is in any ownership dealt with mere platitudes

case not obliged to follow the practice and cast no real light on the question.

of a small group of undertakings. The defendant replies that the explana

tions given by the applicant in fact referred to alleged uncertainties on the C — Imprecise definition of 'bought fer part of the O.C.C.F. and the C.P.F.I. scrap'

at the time imple rous of When the defendant was questioned on mentation of the basic Decisions this subject, the answer given was quite

clear and it was impossible for the ap

The applicant claims that the defendant plicant to have concluded that it was has actually only discussed the concept exempt from equalization. The second of 'own and has never de resources'

SNUPAT judgment (Rec. 1961, p. 150) fined 'bought ferrous scrap', although declared, apparently without seeing any

such a definition had been necessary thing unusual in it, that 'at the time considering former in com practice the when the letters of 18 December 1957 mercial spheres concerned (see B above). and 17 April 1958 were drafted and It is only at first sight that the effect published Official Journal, in the the of this discussion is a contrario that all High Authority had still to resolve en

ferrous scrap which is not 'own resour

ces'

is regarded as 'bought ferrous tirely the problem of defining the prin

ciples contained in basic Decision 2/57, scrap', as intermediate categories exist. which does not define the meaning of Moreover, the term 'own resources'

was the terms 'own resources'

and 'bought used for the first time only in Decision ferrous scrap'. 2/57 and then it was only a question The numerous requests for exemption of 'own resources in aggregate', a fact de presented at the time show that the which encouraged the applicant in its fendant's statement that in principle view. group ferrous scrap was as subject to The defendant states that in fact the sessment had been clear. applicant's submissions only concern The applicant replies that the defendant 'own resources'

con and are therefore is forgetting its original reservations re

tradictory. Furthermore, the defendant garding the exemptions granted to had to the requisite investiga carry out Hoogovens and Breda Siderurgica and tion before being able to determine the the subsequent withdrawal of these application of the general Decisions to reservations, at first on the very vague specific individual cases. grounds given in the letter of 18 December de 1957; consequently, the

fendant be for hav D — Delays and uncertainties in the can also criticized

defining of 'own ing caused the uncertainties. Moreover, resources'

the wrongful acts or omissions of the

The applicant observes that the defend O.C.C.F. and the C.P.F.I. must be re

ant first sent information on the con garded as those of the High Authority.

'own O.C.C.F. resources'

cept of of the

by letter dated 18 December 1957; E — Illegal exemptions

moreover, this communication had to

be supplemented by the letter of 17 The applicant states that the confusion

April 1958. The first of these letters brought about by the letter of 18 shows that the representatives of the December 1957 was increased by the

O.C.C.F. had been unable to agree on two exemptions which had been gran

the definition of this concept. The in ted. It was only in its letter of 17 April formation provided in the letter of 18 1958 that the defendant indicated the

December 1957 on the concept of ground on which these exemptions,

JUDGMENT OF 16. 12. 1963 — CASE 36/62

which dated from 1956, had been gran The applicant contends in answer that

ted. As appears from the second the latter judgment only concerned

SNUPAT judgment, these special rules Hoogovens whose application had not

are illegal on two grounds: first, be been based on a wrongful act or omis

Hoogovens' cause they exempt group ferrous scrap sion. Moreover, position is from the payment of contributions and, quite different from that of the appli

secondly, because they are based on the cant who never acquiesced in an error

'local inte benefited purely arbitrary criterion of made by the defendant, nor

gration'. However, references in the let from such an error. links' ter of 17 April to 'organic and

'industrial complexes'

encouraged the

applicant's view that it was to be ex 2. Injury and causal link empted.

T he defendant contends that the exemp The applicant maintains that the injury 'basically' tions were based on the concept of local suffered consists of having to integration rather than on that of group pay, after the date for payment, its ferrous scrap. The applicant should, contributions in respect of the period

therefore, have realized that it could not from 1 January 1955 to November claim exemption in favour of ferrous 1958. This injury is particularly severe

scrap from the Régie Renault works since the defendant is claiming a very situated several hundred kilometres large sum, the first demand for pay

away. ment amounting to 1 452 787.61 NFrs. It must also be dur remembered that, ing the years in which the applicant was F —

Delay in replying to the applicant; entitled to consider itself exempt from refusal to withdraw the exemp the payment of contributions it would, tions. considering the favourable circumstances existing at the time, have been in a The applicant's first contention is that position to pass the contributions on

on 2 June 1958 the O.C.C.F. made only to its customers. Since 1962 this is no

an evasive response to its request for longer possible, mainly because of the

exemption of 31 March 1958, stating market in special structural steels which

that it was necessary to wait until the is very sensitive to the short-term econ

Court had ruled on the various appli omic situation. Had the defendant up

already brought before it. cations held the applicant's request of 30 July Moreover, the defendant s refusal after 1959 for the withdrawal of the exemp

the first SNUPAT judgment to with tions, the loss suffered could have been draw the two exemptions clearly reduced since at that period a certain

amounts to an additional wrongful act increase in prices would still have been or omission. possible. This negligence on the part of

The defendant that this judg the defendant led to further injury. The replies

ment did not rule on the question of defendant's subsequent withdrawal of

'local integration'. In fact, such a rul the exemptions made good only a part ing was only given in the second of the loss which amounts in total to

SNUPAT judgment, the consequences 1.5 million NFrs. The applicant re

of which were immediately seen by the quests the Court to appoint an expert

defendant. Moreover, in the Hoogovens to assess the extent of the loss if the

judgment the Court declared that there explanations given are judged insuffi

was no wrongful act or omission in cient.

the conduct of the High Authority prior The damage suffered is of a direct to the second SNUPAT judgment. nature, and, on the grounds given under

ACIERIES DU TEMPLE v HIGH AUTHORITY

1 above, is attributable to the wrong The defendant's error in exempting ful act or omission on the part of the Hoogovens and Breda Siderurgica could defendant. The balance-sheet drawn up not have caused the applicant damage, first, by the applicant shows that no provis since it had been annulled and, secondly, ion has been made for equalization con since it did not affect the applicant, tributions; furthermore, the applicant which has always been regarded by the had no reason to make such provision, defendant as subject to assessment.

since over the years it was able to con The applicant replies that no payments

clude from the defendant's attitude that have as yet been made precisely because it was exempt from the payment of no request has been made to this effect.

contributions. Furthermore, the French There is no significance in the close

Treasury would not readily have per links with Renault: the finding of the

mitted such provision since, for the first SNUPAT judgment that even the

reasons set out above, the applicant internal group price is not independent would have had great difficulty justify of the market price leads to the con

ing them. clusion that in relation to the Renault The defendant contends that no injury company the applicant was unable to has been suffered. There is none at enter in its books anything other than

present since the applicant has not yet the market price.

paid any contributions and it cannot As regards the Hoogovens judgment it

arise in future since, according to its has in no way the force of res judicata applicant has basic in respect of the applicant. Furthermore, own statements, the ally only one customer, Régie Renault, in the judgment the Court only stated

with it is closely linked. In the which presumptions which may be contradicted Hoogovens judgment the Court rejected by the facts. The position of the appli

the same argument put forward by the cant is quite different from that of

applicant in that case, namely that it is Hoogovens. It is not at all certain that

impossible to include the of the the applicant has gained specific bene cost

contribution payments in prices; this fits from the fact that it has paid no

judgment contributions; it has been estab applies also to the applicant also not

who intervened in that case. Moreover, lished that the benefits which may have if the applicant had been successful, it accrued are equal to the damage now

would mean that all undertakings using suffered. If need be, an expert should

group ferrous scrap ought to be be to this fact. exemp appointed establish

ted from the contribution. As to the

observation regarding the amount owed, the defendant emphasizes that it has IV.—Procedure never refused to allow settlement by instalments. The procedure followed the normal

In no causal link be course. addition, exists

defendant After Judge- tween the attitude of the and hearing the report of the

the alleged damage suffered. It is clear Rapporteur and the opinion of the

from its own submissions that the error Advocate-General, the Court decided to must be imputed to the applicant. Fur the oral without open procedure any thermore, the applicant's letter of 19 preparatory inquiry. October 1956 and its subsequent re The hearing took place on 27 September quest for exemption both show that it and 17 October 1963. envisaged the possibility of being called At the hearing on 1/ October, the Ad

on to make contributions. The first vocate-General delivered his opinion to

SNUPAT judgment should have re the effect that the application should be moved for it all doubts on the subject. dismissed.

JUDGMENT OF 16. 12. 1963 — CASE 36/62

Grounds of judgment

On the substance of the case

The applicant contends that the conduct of the High Authority in drafting and

applying the basic Decisions governing the equalization scheme in question

amounted to a wrongful act or omission.

This wrongful act or omission led the applicant's predecessor, SNUPAT, to the mistaken belief that the ferrous scrap which it received from Regie Renault was exempt from equalization. SNUPAT therefore carried on its business in a manner which subsequently proved detrimental.

The applicant submits that the wrongful act or omission which it imputes to the High Authority caused the injury of which it complains; it is, therefore, appropriate to examine this question first of all and to establish whether a

causal link actually exists between the alleged wrongful act or omission and the alleged injury. For the purposes of this examination, one must ask not whether

the conduct of the defendant in fact caused the error, but whether it could and

should have caused such an error in the mind of a prudent person.

The basic Decisions which are thus at issue and which concern the successive rules of the equalization scheme (22/54, 14/55 and 2/57) must be considered not in the light of later-case-law, but according to the situation prevailing at the time of their publication.

Although these Decisions did not expressly refer to group ferrous scrap, certain factors must nevertheless have led the undertakings to consider that it was not excluded.

These Decisions, with a view to defining the number of contributors, used the 'undertaking' concept of within the meaning of Article 80 of the ECSC Treaty,

a concept which distinguishes persons having rights and duties and which, dis unless the context otherwise provides, refers to an economic entity tinguished by a distinct legal personality.

'bought' Further, the term used by Decisions 22/54 and 14/55 to identify the ferrous scrap liable to assessment could at least render possible and even likely the application of these arrangements to every sale or similar transaction

between legally distinct undertakings.

This possibility became all the more likely since Decision 2/57, in order to define exempted ferrous scrap, also used the concept of 'own resources', thus

evoking the legal concept of 'ownership'.

ACIÉRIES DU TEMPLE v HIGH AUTHORITY

Even though they were capable of raising doubts in the minds of the under

takings concerned, the basic Decisions were ill-suited to provide assurance that

the ferrous scrap in question was exempt from equalizaton. The applicant

itself alleges that, by letter of 19 October 1956, SNUPAT had put this

question to the defendant without receiving a reply. These circumstances con

firm in fact that SNUPAT was aware of the possibility of assessment.

In this situation, if SNUPAT saw no point in taking the measures necessary in order to meet this possibility, and if its calculation of the cost price thus

turned out be wrong, it is the company's own lack of foresight to which

directly caused the difficulties which it now describes as injury.

Secondly, it should also be considered whether the attitude adopted by the defendant in applying the basic Decisions was likely to lead the applicant into error.

In this respect, the applicant's first contention is that the defendant's letter of 18 December 1957 only defined 'own resources'

and thus left doubt as to the real meaning of the expression 'bought ferrous scrap'. The aim of this defi

clearly to determine which ferrous scrap was exempt. It could have nition was

been deduced a contrario that the defendant considered as assessable all ferrous scrap which did not comply with that definition. This complaint is thus unfounded.

The applicant next contends that there were 'delays and uncertainties'

defining the concept of 'own resources'.

It has already been declared that the basic Decisions, even before being inter preted by the defendant, could not lead to any certainty in the minds of those concerned. This complaint cannot be accepted.

Finally, the applicant maintains that the grant of certain exemptions and the refusal to withdraw them had let SNUPAT to consider that the ferrous scrap in question was not liable to assessment.

The letter of 17 April 1958 clearly showed that the defendant only intended to integrated' include in 'own resources'

ferrous scrap transferred between 'locally undertakings.

Therefore SNUPAT, whose works were not locally integrated with those of Régie Renault, could not reasonably have anticipated being granted an

exemption.

JUDGMENT OF 16. 12. 1963 —CASE 36/62

The most it could envisage was the possibility of annulment of mere the

dis 'group ferrous other than that scrap'

refusal to extend the exemptions to

cussed in this letter. Here too therefore there was neither certitude nor

probability.

Moreover, any such hopes were crushed by the first SNUPAT judgment on which the Court ruled that the ferrous scrap received by SNUPAT from Regie

Renault should be subject to equalization.

The subsequent refusal of the defendant to withdraw the exemptions granted was thus incapable of leading SNUPAT into error in its own case. This last complaint is also unfounded.

It follows from all these considerations that there is no direct relationship of cause and effect between the behaviour imputed to the defendant and the

alleged injury.

The application must therefore be dismissed as unfoundec

Costs

Under the terms of Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure the unsuccessful

party shall be ordered to pay the costs.

In this case, the applicant has failed in all its submissions.

It must therefore be ordered to bear the 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 Article 40 of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community;

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, in particular Article 69(2);

ACIÉRIES DU TEMPLE v HIGH AUTHORITY

THE COURT

hereby :

I. Dismisses the application as unfounded;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

Dormer Hammes Trabucchi

Delvaux Rossi Lecourt Strauß

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 16 December 1963.

A. Van Houtte A. M. Donner

Registrar President

OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE-GENERAL M. LAGRANGE 1 DELIVERED ON 17 OCTOBER 1963

Mr President, (2) in the persistence of the High Members of the Court, Authority in that error and the un

certainty which it caused among the

You are asked to give judgment in an undertakings regarding their actual

application, under Article 40 of the rights.

ECSC Treaty, made by the Société des As regards the error of law, the appli Aciéries du Temple (the successor of cant recalls at length—one might even the Société nouvelle des usines de argu say, with a certain nostalgia—the Pontlieue—Aciéries du Temple, or ment developed in its first application, SNUPAT, which you know well) for according to which the essentially econ

reparation for a wrongful act or omis

omic purpose of the equalization scheme on the of the High Author sion part should have been based on the concept ity. of the market, from which it follows that This wrongful act or omission is said movements of ferrous scrap having no to have consisted: repercussion on the market, such as

(1) in an error of law committed by the those of group ferrous scrap, should not High Authority in the reconciliation be taxed. It is in this sense that the

which it was required to make be creators of the Equalization Fund had tween the aim of equalization, an always intended it. Certainly, the appli

economic and re cant declares that it submits to the de essentially aim, spect for the principle of equality cisions of the Court which have held between the contributors, a principle otherwise, on the basis that the event

which, it is alleged, was infringed; giving rise to the contribution was the

1 — Translated from the French.