C-23/63

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 5 DECEMBER 1963

Société Anonyme Usines Émile Henrit, Société Anonyme Métallurgique d'Espéance-Longdoz and Compagnie des Forges

de Châtillon, Commentry et Neuves-Maisons, Société Anonyme Community2 v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel

Joined Cases 23, 24 and 52/63

Summary

1. Measures adopted by institutions of the Community — Decisions of the High Authority — Constituent elements

character of a decision even though particular, does not appear to have it fails in­ been debated to comply with some and adopted by the essential requirement of form laid High Authority and which is not down by the High Authority for the authenticated by the signature of one

identification of its decisions. of its members, cannot be regarded

(b) The decision must appear as a as a decision.

by High 2. In any formal appli­ measure adopted the the absence of

Authority, acting as a body, intended cation for the unsuccessful party to

to produce legal effects, constituting be ordered to pay the costs, the

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

JUDGMENT OF 5. 12. 1963 — JOINED CASES 23, 24 AND 52/63

24/63

SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME MÉTALLURGIQUE D'ESPÉRANCE-LONGDOZ , Liège (Belgium), representedby its general manager and its secretary-general, assisted by J. Mertens de Wilmars, advocate at the Antwerp Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of E. Arendt, advocate, 6 rue Willy-Goergen,

52/63

COMPAGNIE DES FORGES DE CHÂTILLON, COMMENTRY ET NEUVES-MAISONS, SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME , (France), represented by its vice-chairman and Paris general manager, by Jean-Pierre Aron, advocate at the Cour d'Appel assisted

In the matter (at the present stage of the proceedings) of the admissibility of the applications made by the above-named companies respectively, as folows:

(a) Application for annulment of the individual decisions addressed to them by the High Authority contained in letters of 5 and 8 April 1963 and relating to the basis of assessment of the applicants'

contributions to the equalization

scheme for imported ferrous scrap and the fixing of the sums payable in conseaqence (Cases 23. 24 and 52/63);

(b) Application for annulment 'so far as is Decision No 7/63 of necessary'

of

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

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

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Facts High Authority, we then made pro­

certain tonnage the basis of their assess­ Taking into account this exemption, the ments to contributions to the equaliza­ basis of your assessment to contribu­

tion scheme for imported ferrous scrap tions is .. . .

The statement, divided into accounting and indicating by reference to revised

fixed Decision periods, appears in the schedule rates of contribution by No. 7/63, the payments required to be hereto.

High 31 However, the above-mentioned basis of made to the Authority 'by the assessment remains provisional May at the latest'. The letter 5 April pending the results of a survey of your sent on 1963 to S.A. Usines Émile Henricot (Case affairs commissioned from the Société Basel.' Anonyme Fiduciaire Suisse of 23/63) reads as follows: 'A statement of account your The letters sent on 8 April 1963 are reflecting present position with regard to the identical, save for the paragraph con­

schemes referred to in the margin will taining the statement of account. They be sent to you shordy. We should like read as follows: 'Decision No 7/63 High Author­ to make the following observations on of the

therein, a complete statement of account parties as to the admis­

taking into consideration all the debits sibility of the applica­

and credits, inclusive of principal and tions

interest, of your undertaking has been compiled and is enclosedherewith. The In Case 23 and 24/63, the High Author­ statement is in two parts. The first ity contends, in accordance with Article complies with Decisions Nos 22/54, 91 of the Rules Procedure, that the of

14/55, 26/55, 3/56 and 2/57 (admini­ Court should declare, without going into stration of the Imported Ferrous Scrap the substance of these cases, that the

Equalization Fund — referred to for the applications for annulment made by the sake of brevity by the initials of the applicant companies on 8 and 20 May French is 1963 are inadmissible and should title, that to say, C.P.F.I.) while the second is based on Decision therefore declare inadmissible the appli­

These letters, sent by registered post Article 33 of the Treaty; ing of with form of acknowledgement of

receipt, were accompanied by an 2. Order the defendant to pay the explanatory note and bore a reference costs.'

'to be quoted when making payment'. Application for annulment of the letters, The applicant in Case 24/63 contends

together with subsidiary conclusions, that the Court should:

were lodged by the applicant under­ Place on record the tact that the appli­

takings. cant leaves it to the Court to decide:

give reasons for its decision on this in Article 92 of the Treaty. point; The explanatory note accompanying In any event, order the High Authority them is evidence that the request for to pay the costs.'

payment is only provisional, and con­

The applicant in Case 52/63 contends tains a request for comments. Accord­

that the Court should: ingly they do not constitute the 'final word'

'Dismiss of the administration after all the argument of inadmissibility founded on the fact that the application recourse under the internal procedure

comprises two claims which differ as to has been exhausted. The majority of

it to the Court to decide whether the They draw attention, however, to the document in dispute constitutes a de­ factors which in their opinion could

cision or not; cause the disputed letters to be regarded If the Court rules that it does not, and asdecisions, in particular the peremptory nature of the letters, the accordingly that the application as a specifying of is High a definite date for payment and the whole inadmissible, order the substantive content of the Authority to pay the costs in accordance explanatory with the provisions of the second sub­ note. In support of their argument they paragraph of Article 69 of the Rules cite the judgment of the Court in Case (3) of Procedure.' 14/59.

2. Decision No 7/63

III Arguments of the The High Authority —

stresses that the parties application made in Case 23/63 for the annulment 'so far as is necessary'

of On the application for annulment Decision No 7/63 constitutes an ob­

cedure set out in that Decision, con­ the Treaty requires an applicant in pro­

tained no more than a simple state­ ceedings against a general decision to

ment of account formally made subject allege a misuse of powers affecting him, to the checks to be carried out, and which has not been done in this in­ 'request' were merely a to pay and not stance.

JUDGMENT OF 5. 12. 1963 — JOINED CASES 23, 24 AND 52/63

On the subsidiary applications for that the defendant's arguments are ex­

damages and for the appointment of pressly contradicted by the case-law of experts the Court (Judgment in Fives Lille Cail, Rec. 1961, p. 590). In Cases 23 and 24/63 the High Authority alleges that at the present Costs stage in the proceedings the subsidiary applications ought to meet the same It should be emphasized that the three

On the other hand, in Case 52/63 the for the purposes of the oral procedure

High Authority alleges that in national and of the judgment on the objections

legal systems, the submission in a single of inadmissibility. action of two claims in which the A question was put by the Court on 'petitum' 'causa 30 September 1963 to the High Author­ petendi'

and the are

different, and even contradictory, would ity and the latter replied on 10 October. make the entire action or at the very The oral procedure took place on 10

least the subsidiary claim, inadmissible. October 1963. The applicant in Case 24/63 admits On 16 October 1963 Mr Advocate-

receipt to the undertakings S.A. Usines Émile Henricot, S.A. Métallurgique d'Espérance-Longdoz and Compagnie des Forges de Châtillon, Commentry et Neuves-Maisons. The letters stated that the said undertakings were requested to make by 31 May 1963 at the latest, certain payments by way of contribution to the imported ferrous scrap equalization scheme.

Fearing that the content of these letters would be regarded as a decision within the meaning of the ECSC Treaty, the recipient undertakings made an appli­

cation for annulment of the alleged decision with a subsidiary claim for damages against the High Authority.

USINES HENRICOT V HIGH AUTHORITY

S.A. Usines Émile Henricot made a further application for the annulment 'so far as is necessary'

of Decision No 7/63 of 3 April 1963 of the High Authority.

It is appropriate to inquire whether the letters constitute a decision within the

meaning of Article 14 of the Treaty. According to the provisions of this

Article, the High Authority 'shall decisions which 'shall be binding take'

.. . .

in their entirety'.

The High Authority in its Decision No 22/60 has considered it necessary to establish 'as a matter of obligation'

ing of the Treaty are otherwise satisfied.

According to Article 14, decisions shall be taken by the High Authority, that is to say by its members sitting as a body. As such decisions are 'binding in however, they must show that they are intended to have legal entirety'

their

effects upon those to whom they are addressed.

JUDGMENT OF 5. 12. 1963 — JOINED CASES 23, 24 AND 52/63

It follows from the natural meaning of the word that a decision marks the culmination of procedure within the High Authority, and is thus the definitive expression of its intentions.

have. Consequently the applications are inadmissible.

The application made by S.A. Usines Émile Henricot for the annulment 'so far as is necessary'

of Decision No 7/63 of 3 April 1963 must be treated in the same way as the principal application, and also be declared inadmissible.

On the inadmissibility of the applications for damages

The applicant companies submitted in their applications subsidiary claims for damages on the grounds of an alleged wrongful act or omission on the part of the High Authority. The S.A. Métallurgique d'Éspérance-Longdoz also sub­

mitted a subsidiary application for experts to be appointed whose main task would be to assess the damage it had suffered. However, the inadmissibility of

Under Article 69 (3) of the Rules of Procedure moreover, it is open to the Court to order even a successful party to pay in whole or in part the costs incurred by the opposite party. The peremptory tone of the letters involved in the present proceedings, accentuated by the mode of despatch, and the setting of a time-limit for payment, were capable in themselves of creating uncertainty

in the applicants'

minds about the nature of the said letters. The High

Authority, having by its own conduct induced the applicants to institute pro­

ceedings in order to safeguard their rights, must bear the greater part of the

costs. It is appropriate that the High Authority should bear three-quarters of the costs of the applicants.

I. Rules that the applications submitted by the Société anonyme Usines Émile Henricot (Case 23/63), the Société anonyme Métallurgique d'Espérance-Longdoz (Case 24/63) and the Compagnie des Forges de Chatillon, Commentry et Neuves-Maisons société anonyme (Case

52/63) are inadmissible;

OPINION OF MR ROEMER — JOINED CASES 23, 24 AND 52/63

2. Orders the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Commu­

nity to bear its own costs and three-quarters of the costs of the

applicants, and the applicants to bear one-quarter of their own costs

Mr President, On various grounds, with which we need Members of the Court, not concern ourselves at this stage of

the proceedings, the undertakings con­

Since the oral proceedings in Cases 23, sider the statements of account to be 24, 28 and 52/63 were for practical incorrect. They have, therefore, lodged purposes dealt with in a single hearing, applications with the principal aim of

perhaps I may be allowed to present my having these statements annulled. opinion relating to these cases in a The High Authority has not yet ex­

single statement. I think this is also pressed its view as to whether the ob­

justified in view of the fact that the jections are well founded, but — as in principal legal point involved, that of Cases 53 and 54/63 —

connection with the liquidation of the determine as it sees fit. In particular

equalization scheme for ferrous scrap they submit no arguments with regard

the credits and debits of the undertak­ to resolving this problem which would ings in relation to the equalization lead to any other result than that in scheme on the basis of Decision No Cases 53 and 54/63. 7/63 and requested them to remit cer­ Consequently, I may be permitted to tain sums of money to the High Authority refrain from repeating my deductions by 31 May 1963 at the latest. and content myself with recalling the

1 — Translated from the German.