C-29/67

Commission of the European Communities , represented by its legal Advisers, Guy Sautter and Erich Zimmerman, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at its offices, 2 place de Metz,

defendant,

Application for

— the annulment of a decision of the High Authority of 28 June 1967 in so far as it imposes upon the applicant a fine of FF 160 000 under Article 64 of the ECSC Treaty,

— the annulment of the second sentence of Article 2(1) of Decision No 30/53 of the High Authority of 2 May 1953 (Official Journal ECSC of 4 May 1953, No 6),

THE COURT

Issues of fact and of law

wire-drawing plant. annul the second and last sentence of Article 2(1) of Decision No 30/53, With regard to the first category of trans­ actions the decision acknowledges that the and order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.' circumstances in which they took place justified the discounts which were allowed The defendant contends that the Court but complains that the applicant has failed should: to comply with the obligation to publish these discounts. 'dismiss the applications as unfounded in With regard to the second category of trans­ every respect with all legal consequences, in actions it confirms that some of the differen- particular with regard to costs.'

JUDGMENT OF 11. 6. 1968 — CASE 29/67

The distinction drawn between the two — infringement of the Treaty and the rules relating to its application. groups of transactions in question is all the more difficult to understand because there are three French motor car manufacturers I — Infringement of an essential procedural requirement among the nineteen other customers. Yet the transactions entered into with the latter are similar to those concluded with the The submissions and arguments of the German manufacturers and the benefits parties may be summarized as follows: granted are in the same order of magnitude. The applicant maintains that the statement Notwithstanding this fact the contested of the reasons upon which the decision is decision does not give any of the reasons based is wholly inadequate and does not which caused the High Authority to make comply with the criteria laid down in the such a distinction. The only reference in it to case-law of the Court (Judgment in Case this question relates to the discounts which 1/63), because it does not give the reasons under the designation 'rebates allowing for why the High Authority: variations in current economic trends' — rejected the argument of the Société de (hereinafter referred to as 'conjunctural Wendel that the transactions alleged to rebates') or 'rebates for market conditions' be illegal were 'transactions having ex were allowed to the three French motor car ceptional features'; manufacturers and not to the German — drew a distinction between, on the one manufacturers. The question of the scope of hand, the benefits granted to the German these discounts will be examined in connec motor vehicle manufacturers which were tion with the second submission that the held to be justified and, on the other Treaty has been infringed, but the above- hand, the benefits granted to nineteen mentioned reference cannot be accepted. other customers which were held to be As is shown by the two letters of confirma unjustified; tion, sent by the Société de Wendel re — drew a distinction within this group of spectively to Volkswagen on 15 June 1954 nineteen transactions between the price and to Opel on 22 June 1954 and notified to differences which were held to be justified the High Authority, the discounts in and those which were held to be un question were allowed under the same con justified. ditions in the transactions entered into with The applicant puts forward the following German manufacturers. arguments in support of these complaints: (c) The third complaint (a) The first complaint Similarly the distinction drawn, within the

DE WENDEL v COMMISSION

It states that according to The contested decision expressly states why the case-law of the Court the High Author it draws a distinction between transactions ity did not have to refute each and every entered into with the four German motor objection raised by the applicant (Judgment car manufacturers and those entered into in Case 2/56) or to repeat in full a discussion with the nineteen French consumers. of the arguments put forward by the appli Sanctions have been imposed in respect of cant during the preparatory inquiries the former for infringement of the obliga (Judgment in Case 27/64). Moreover it tion to make them public.

It also states that a distinction must be made (c) The third complaint between the discounts allowed having regard to the nature of the transactions in The applicant fails to understand the question (rebates for long-standing cus significance of the figures set out in the tomers, loyalty, quantity premiums) and annex to the contested decision. They are those allowed for other reasons, such as the not intended to distinguish between price market conditions or variations in short differences which can be justified because term economic trends and which should they are non-discriminatory and price have been allowed uniformly to all the differences regarded as discriminatory: undertaking's customers. The fundamental their purpose is to determine the value of reasoning on this point upon which the the 'sales effected in disregard' (of Chapter decision is based was moreover explained to V of the Treaty or decisions taken there the applicant at the meeting on 25 May 1967. under) referred to in Article 64 of the

2 of Decision No 30/53 (as amended by car manufacturers relating to large quanti­ Decision No 1/54) 'for a seller to apply ties of thin steel cannot be exceptional prices or conditions departing from those transactions since the seller has entered into

shown in his price list' is not regarded as a similar transactions with a series of other prohibited practice, where the vendor can motor car manufacturers. The transactions show 'that the transaction is question does are in principle comparable if the seller not fall within the categories of transactions delivers the same products (thin steel) in just covered by this price list'. as large quantities to other consumers. However the transactions alleged to be If the applicant's argument were accepted, illegal belong to the category of special the scope of the principle of non-discrimina­ transactions under the beforementioned tion would be severely limited, having decision. The main characteristics to be regard in particular to the volume of sales in noted in this respect are as follows: 1965 of the Société de Wendel in its principal market (France) (52% to 84.4% according — loyalty based on the long-standing nature to the type of product). of the commercial relationship which has Moreover the 'exceptional' nature of the actually existed between the parties; disputed transactions cannot be inferred — the size of the orders in question; from the fact that each transaction had the — the special situation which arises when characteristics which the applicant has the buyer agrees to purchase from the mentioned. producer a percentage—up to 80% — of With regard in particular to the example of his requirements and where the producer technical cooperation an examination of the guarantees at all times to meet this per­ particulars supplied in this connexion shows centage; that: — far-reaching technical cooperation en­ abling the supplier to carry out large- — in the case of a whole series of customers scale improvements of his means of pro­ the agreements concluded with them do duction or to develop new products not provide for any cooperation;

intended to challenge the principle of non­ for technical purposes between producer discrimination and to criticize Article 60 of and consumer with the object of being the Treaty, replies that the defendant's better able to adapt the quality of the argument cannot be accepted, because product to the wishes of the customers according to the wording of the first senten­ and to the requirements of subsequent ce of Article 2 of Decision No 30/53 (as processing. It consists rather in the amended by Decision No 1/54) a transaction possibility of joint research by the sup­ is exceptional when 'it does not fall within plier and the buyer, and often even by the categories of transactions covered by the latter's customers. Frequently this this price list'. There is therefore no reason research culminates in manufacturing why there should not be a large number of processes branching out in a new direc­ transactions of the same kind as the one in tion and the development of new modi­ question which also fall outside the catego­ fications leading to an advantageous ries of transactions covered by the price list. extension of the producer's markets. The fact that there is a large number of such Such cooperation goes far beyond the transactions ceases to be exceptional. field of normal technical cooperation The statement of defence—the applicant described by the defendant; adds—tries to buttress its argument by com­ — as to the third argument: its meaning is paring the quantities delivered under the hard to understand. If, in the cases disputed transactions with 'total sales in mentioned, what is concerned is an 1965 by the applicant in its principal market 'identical' cooperation added to other (France)'. Apart from the fact that these unique features, the transactions in figures (with the exception of those referring question would also be unique in charac­ to reinforcing bars) do not correspond to ter without thereby causing the agree­ those in the applicant's possession it must be ments concluded by the applicant to lose their own character. made clear that, even if the problem is con­ sidered from the Commission's point of In its rejoinder the defendant explains that a view and the exceptional transactions are transaction is only 'exceptional' if its special considered according to their relative size, characteristics are incapable of being the only criterion to adopt is the number of repeated in other transactions. customers or transactions and the quantities Therefore a large number of transactions supplied under these transactions. which have exactly the same characteristics However if the number of these transactions are not special but comparable. is compared with the total number of French In the present case the transactions alleged customers much lower percentages than to be illegal have characteristics which are those mentioned by the Commission (from normal commercial practices, can be re­ 1.9% to 6.4% according to the type of peated in other transactions and are found product) are obtained. in many of the transactions entered into by Finally with regard to the arguments put the applicant with different customers, forward by the defendant in connexion with since:

(a) On the one hand, none of the four important points are concerned, which criteria which—taken alone or together also proves that the various transactions —in the opinion of the applicant justify at issue are not exceptional transactions. the classification of the contested trans The defendant concludes its argument by actions as 'exceptional transactions', can pointing out that the contrary view put be applied. forward by the applicant is based on a mis The first and third of these criteria (long understanding. It is the applicant's view that standing relations between the parties the prohibition against discrimination laid and an agreement between them for down in Article 60 of the Treaty does not supplying a large percentage of the preclude the adaptation of its prices policy buyer's requirements) have the charac in each case in accordance with require teristics of loyalty discounts: the second ments of good commercial management, criterion (size of the tonnages in ques and in taking this view it overlooks the fact tion) refers to a feature which may jus that this prohibition, as it must be under tify quantity discounts. stood in the context of this article, implies a However the loyalty discount is a well- strict obligation on the part of the under established current commercial practice taking to standardize its price system. which is compatible with the principle Such a prohibition, accompanied by the of non-discrimination.

2. The discriminatory nature of the price the price lists. These transactions are variations applied therefore transactions having 'special characteristics': they are comparable to The applicant maintains that even if certain each other. That is why Article 2(f) of transactions are not exceptional transac Decision No 31/53 (as amended by tions they are nevertheless outside the scope Decision No 2/54) provides for the of Article 60. According to the first sentence publication of these discounts. of the first paragraph Article 2 of Decision Finally with regard to the fourth No 30/53 (as amended by Decision No 1/54) criterion an examination of the facts the application of prices different from produced by way of proof in support of those in the price list is not regarded as a it by the applicant has not shown that prohibited practice if the seller can show the technical cooperation under the 'that the prices.

The the same, as is shown in summary form only reason why the transactions are not by the above analysis. In addition to the caught by Article 60 is to be found in the variations relating to the special and final price. Any attempt to establish the specific aspects of each case, these agree illegality of any transactions within the ments are identical so far as a number of meaning of Article 60 on the basis of the

economic state of the trade a discount Moreover in speaking of the differentia­ connected with these factors. As the tion of discounts mathematical strict­ current economic state of the trade ness must be avoided in a system as affects all customers in the same way the complicated as the one in this case. It is discount attributable to these factors all the more complicated because the should have been allowed to all cus­ distinguishing feature of the trans­ tomers. actions in question is that many different criteria have to be applied. To The applicant submits the following ob­ consider fixing the amount of the total servations on these three objections raised discounts at a figure equivalent to pre­ in the statement of defence. miums allowed for each of the criteria (a) the Société de Wendel did not infringe which are supposed to be taken into the principle of non-discrimination by account separately would amount to a agreeing different price increases and misunderstanding of the realities of reductions, because the diversity of the commercial life. discounts allowed is explained by the The amount of this rebate and therefore fact that the transactions were not com­ the actual price will depend upon the parable. Annual deliveries of 50 000 relative importance which it is thought metric tons of steel sheets to motor car should be given to each of these criteria, manufacturers (Citroen, Simca) cannot so that it is in practice impossible to be put on the same footing as annual draw up in the form of a price list a deliveries of 5 000 metric tons of com­ table of rebates to be granted. What mercial steel to wire-drawing firms and matters is that rebates of the same order manufacturers of nuts and bolts (Giros, of magnitude be granted in comparable Hermant-Hicquet). circumstances. (b) With regard to the discount mentioned (c) Finally, with regard to the argument in the annex to the contested decision that the applicant sold 'some of its under the columns headed 'loyalty dis­ products at the list price' whereas it counts' and 'conjunctural rebates' their allowed 'discounts for the economic designation is simply a matter of pre­ situation' on others, it is sufficient to call sentation and is of minor importance. attention again to the fact that the ex­ It is only the actual final price which is pressions 'conjunctural rebate' and the decisive factor. Therefore in the 'rebate in respect of market conditions' case of Citroen and Simca the discounts are of purely formal significance and

that it is only the actual final price which factor (the trend of the market) whereas is relevant. This price can be fixed in the quantity and loyalty discounts are linked case of transactions which are not to a stable pre-established factor (the current, provided of course that the obligations of the customer), and that principle of non-discrimination is ob they are subject to periodic review and to served in relation to comparable trans price variations. It is for this reason that actions (the first paragraph of Article 2 in this case we find that the conjunctural of Decision No 30/53). discounts allowed to individual cus tomers have evolved along almost paral The defendant retorts that in order to ensure lel lines, whereas contractual obligations that the benefits granted by way of loyalty of the customers vary from case to case. and quantity discounts and conjunctural The assertion that the question whether rebates are not discriminatory, they must be there has been discrimination should be uniformly granted in all comparable trans determined not by examining all com

comment. First, the categories have been — The example given in the applicant's chosen arbitrarily and are not the same reply showing that the discounts increase as those shown in the applicant's price or decrease strictly in proportion to the list. Next, the figures do not distinguish value of the order—the differences in the between the types of discounts. Finally, price variations according to the appli they do not explain why greater benefits cant were only found in non-comparable were granted to certain customers for transactions—is not convincing, because several months (for example there were examples proving the contrary could greater price variations between Mouli also be given: 2% for 3 000 or 4 000 nex and Paris-Rhone from May to Sep metric tons and 3% for 2 000 metric tons tember 1965). However the table pro (Moulinex, Labbe, Paris-Rhone) or for duced shows, in spite of these correc 8 000, 8 500, 9 000 metric tons (Schmid- tions, price variations which are all the Soprem, Arthur Martin Behim). more significant because even a differ — The applicant 's argument that there is no ence of 1% to 2% having regard to the distinction between loyalty and quantity amount and high prices of the deliveries discounts and conjunctural discounts is represents a considerable sum. untenable in law and unfounded in fact. Finally the argument that is it necessary, Each discount must in fact satisfy when speaking of the differentiation of objective criteria, because otherwise the discounts, to avoid mathematical strict system of publishing prices, indicating ness is rebutted by the beforementioned specific increases and reductions (sizes, considerations invoked in connexion tolerances, quantity, loyalty) would have with the argument that the possibility of no purpose, reference to transactions fixing different prices and the prohibition which are comparable would no longer against discrimination in Article 60 have any meaning and it would be im cannot be reconciled.

With regard to the argument relating to the 3. The distinction between transactions conjunctural rebates and rebates in respect entered into with German motor car of market conditions allowed to French manufacturers and the other trans­ customers it should be noted: actions — that these designations, as has already The applicant complains that the contested been explained, only have a formal decision regarded the transactions entered significance, as it is only the actual final into with the German motor car manufac­ price which is relevant; — that in any event, so far as current turers as justified and on the other hand economic trends and market conditions qualified the nineteen other transactions are concerned, the German and French with French consumers (including three manufacturers were treated on the same motor car manufacturers) as prohibited footing (as emerges from the two letters practices within the meaning of Article 60. That is a view which is manifestly contrary of confirmation already referred to). to the principle of non-discrimination, in The defendant stresses that the foundation particular so far as the transactions entered of this complaint is the argument that the into with the three French motor car distinction between a conjunctural discount manufacturers are concerned. These trans­ or a discount in respect of market conditions actions are in fact comparable to those and a quantity or loyalty discount is purely entered into with the German manufac­ formal. turers. However, the considerations which have The defendant replies that the contested just been mentioned, and which show that decision did not take exception to the dis­ this distinction exists in fact and objectively, counts allowed to all the motor car manu­ suffice to dispose of this complaint. facturers on the basis of the criteria of Moreover the figures put forward by the loyalty, regular orders and quantity. What applicant in its reply in order to compare the the decision criticized as the additional benefits granted to the two motor car benefits granted to the three French manufacturers, Volkswagen and Citroen manufacturers under the transactions con­ are irrelevant. In the first case the deliveries cluded with them with reference to factors amounted to 5 000-7 000 metric tons per —such as those beforementioned—which month, whereas in the second case they have no bearing on the transactions in amounted to 31 000 metric tons per annum question but which are based on the (that is to say, about 2 500 metric tons per economic situation and current short-term month) which makes the comparison value­ economic trends. less. As the situation and the current economic trends affected all customers, these addition­ B — The illegality of the second sentence al benefits or price variations should have of the first paragraph of Article 2 of been allowed to all of them. Since this was Decision No 30/53 not done the transactions in question are discriminatory. The applicant submits that when the contes­ The applicant replies that the benefits ted measure decided that the justified price granted to the French customers were not differences should have been published higher but lower than those granted to the it disregarded the first sentence of the first

paragraph of Article 2 of Decision No 30/53 which had not been made public. The which permits the granting of discounts obligation which the applicant has dis similar to those in this rasp regarded in this connexion is found in Moreover, it goes on to say that the com Decision No 31/53 which expressly lays plaint made against the Société Wendel on down that loyalty and quantity discounts this point is based on a provision, the must be made public. second sentence of the first paragraph of the The applicant endeavours to give a more said Article 2 which is null and void. detailed explanation of the contradiction There is in fact a serious contradiction which exists in its view between the two between this sentence and the first sentence relevant sentences of the first paragraph of of the same paragraph. The first sentence Article 2.

The following contradicts the first, because imposing upon contradiction results precisely from this: sellers the obligation to publish, or more 'In certain transactions discounts can be precisely to show in their price lists the allowed which depart from those shown in departures permitted by the first sentence, is the price lists' (first sentence), but ,'at the in practice tantamount to eliminating the same time these discounts cannot be less possibility of departing from the price lists. than those in the price lists' (second sen The second sentence deprives the whole of tence). the first paragraph of Article 2 (as amended) Having made this point the applicant states of its substance and must for this reason be that it has never intended to challenge the

publish. first paragraph of Article 2 of Decision No The defendant retorts that the applicant 30/53 (as amended by Decision No 1/54). cannot invoke the judgment of the Court in These provisions are based on the generally Case 1/54 to prove that the second sentence accepted view that the obligation not to discriminate and the obligation to publish of the first paragraph of Article 2 of Deci prices are entirely separate; they have sion No 30/53 contradicts the first sentence, different objectives and impose different since this judgment, which establishes the distinction between discrimination and the

DE WENDEL v COMMISSION

However: The defendant therefore concludes mat

there is no contradiction between the first — the first sentence of this paragraph does and second sentences of the first paragraph not speak of discounts but of 'prices or of Article 2. Price advantages can in fact be conditions departing from those shown non-discriminatory (first sentence) but can in his price list'; nevertheless be granted in violation'of the — neither the first nor the second sentence rules on publication (second sentence): this refers to the amount of the discounts is simply a logical distinction between dis­ but—independently of their amount—­ crimination and infringement of the price considers the price variations in the light publication rules. The second sentence is of the rules relating to non-discrimina­ moreover a simple statement, as the tion and publication; obligation imposed upon undertakings to — the text in question states clearly that publish prices has already been defined by what is concerned is the 'limits appli­ Decisions Nos 31/53 and 37/54 and non­ cable under the price publication rules.' compliance therewith can be punished with However these rules, which for the pur­ a fine under the provisions of Article 64, pose of this case are contained in Deci­ independently of the definition given to sion No 31/53, do not indicate what the prohibited practices (Decision No 30/53). amount of the discounts must be, but Therefore if the second sentence whose merely indicate which departures must meaning is challenged were thought to be be published by undertakings in their inapplicable, the legal position would be the price lists. same. A breach of the duty could in fact be It follows therefore that the 'limits' in penalized under Article 64 even if there were question only refer to the 'price publication no infringement of the prohibition against rules'. Moreover the German text only con­ discrimination contained in Article 60(1). firms this interpretation.

JUDGMENT OF 11. 6. 1968 — CASE 29/67

raises an objection of illegality within the meaning of the third paragraph of Article 36 of the Treaty. It is therefore necessary to consider this objection as a submission supporting the appeal in which the Court has unlimited jurisdiction.

The submission of infringement of the Treaty

A — The duty not to discriminate

The fine which is the subject-matter of the application is imposed first for discri­ minatory practices prohibited by Article 60(1) of the Treaty and by Article 2 (as amended) of Decision No 30/53.

The practices in respect of which a fine has been imposed consisted in the allowance of discounts inspired in particular by reasons concerning the short-term state of the market, in transactions entered into by the applicant with sixteen French consumers.

Under the provisions of Article 60(1) of the Treaty discriminatory practices in­ volving the application by a seller of dissimilar conditions to comparable trans­ actions are prohibited. This prohibition is defined by Article 2 of Decision No 30/53 (as amended) under which departures from prices shown in the price list are only permitted if the transaction to which they are applied does not fall within the categories of transactions covered by the price list, or if, the the case of a number of transactions having special features in common, the prices have been departed from 'uniformly'. Therefore a transaction which is not governed by the general criteria for fixing prices is not prohibited by Article 60(1) of the Treaty, as any danger of discrimination is avoided because by its very nature such a transaction is not com­ parable to any other. On the other hand Article 60(1) applies to transactions which, although as compared with normal transactions they have exceptional character­ istics and for this reason obtain the benefit of special conditions of sale, nevertheless remain comparable one with another.

DE WENDEL v COMMISSION

The factors relating to the loyalty of customers and to the quantities bought, which are relied on in this case, are not such as to make a transaction non-comparable.

Such factors are often a typical feature of the commercial relations between pro­ ducers and the processing industry. In addition, with regard to technical coopera­ tion, it appears from the facts put forward by the parties that comparable types of cooperation exist or are provided for in many transactions. With regard to the other transactions this cooperation is not special or exceptional, since its only purpose is to secure the delivery of products capable of meeting the needs of a specialized processing industry or to permit the buyer to carry out an effective check of the quality of the products with which he is supplied. It cannot be concluded after taking all these matters into consideration that the disputed transactions have any 'exceptional characteristics' which remove them from the categories shown in the price list within the meaning of Article 2 (as amended) of Decision No 30/53.

The application of an identical or similar final price to several comparable trans­ actions does not of itself remove the possibility of discrimination, for the har­ monization of prices may be achieved by a combination of very different factors or of premiums granted in accordance with arbitrary criteria which vary from case to case. The principle of non-discrimination is only observed to the extent to which each of the factors which have contributed to the fixing of a final identical price has been established according to objective criteria applied uniformly to all com­ parable transactions. On the other hand the distinction between the different categories of premiums, far from being a purely formal matter, must satisfy objective criteria and requirements arising out of the nature of each premium. Loyalty or quantity rebates granted according to features peculiar to each trans­ action are connected with these features in such a way that they do not vary pro­ vided that the transactions are of the same kind.

On the other hand rebates allowing for variation in current economic trends ('conjunctural' rebates) are not connected with such features but are granted

JUDGMENT OF 11. 6. 1968 — CASE 29/67

because of market conditions which affect or are capable of affecting a totality of traders so that they are intended to fluctuate in accordance with periodically recorded changes in the market conditions. Moreover, only an exact specification of the various factors which cause prices to vary to the advantage of certain trans­ actions from those shown in the price list can prevent discrimination against other buyers, who, although they do not benefit from these advantages, may be in a comparable situation. In particular, conjunctural rebates are, for the reasons given above, an example of a discount which other consumers could justifiably claim. Therefore the applicant's argument that the price advantages granted to buyers in comparable situations should be considered 'having regard to all discounts taken together' does not satisfy the requirements of Article 60(1) of the Treaty.

It follows from Article 60(2) of the Treaty that publication of prices is a method of

DE WENDEL v COMMISSION

achieving the objectives stated in the first paragraph. As this method prescribed by the Treaty is mandatory the obligation to publish price lists and conditions of sale must be regarded as a strict rule of law to which no exception is permitted. By virtue of this rule undertakings in the steel industry must publish all prices and con­ ditions of sale in their price lists and any subsequent modifications. The second sentence of Article 2 (as amended) of Decision No 30/53, far from contradicting the previous sentence, conforms to this rule by providing that amendments of prices and conditions of sale incorporated in the price list shall be made public to the extent to which they apply to comparable transactions. Article 2(f) of Decision No 31/53, supplemented by Decision No 2/54, confirms this requirement by providing expressly that loyalty discounts allowed in such transactions shall be made public.

Therefore, as the contested premiums were regarded as lawful under the first sentence of Article 2 (as amended) of Decision No 30/53 and were applied to com­ parable transactions they should have been published in conformity with the beforementioned provisions and in accordance with Article 60(2) of the Treaty.

Therefore this submission must be rejected.

Moreover, as the amount of the disputed fine was calculated on the basis of the minimum volume of illegal sales recorded it does not appear to be unduly high.

This submission is therefore unfounded.

Costs

Under 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.

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 Articles 2, 3, 4, 33, 36, 60 and 64 of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice annexed to 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, especially Article 69;

THE COURT

A. Van Houtte R. Lecourt

Registrar President