Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) >> Acciaieria Ferriera di Roma (FERAM) and others v High Authority of the ECSC. [1965] EUECJ C-25/64 (2 June 1965)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1965/C2564.html
Cite as: [1965] EUECJ C-25/64

[New search] [Help]

IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The source of this judgment is the web site of the Court of Justice of the European Communities. The information in this database has been provided free of charge and is subject to a Court of Justice of the European Communities disclaimer and a copyright notice. This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment.

61964J0009
Judgment of the Court of 2 June 1965.
Acciaieria Ferriera di Roma (FERAM) and others v High Authority of the ECSC.
Joined cases 9 and 25-64.
European Court reports
French edition 1965 Page 00401
Dutch edition 1965 Page 00392
German edition 1965 Page 00422
Italian edition 1965 Page 00384
English special edition 1965 Page 00311
Danish special edition 1965-1968 Page 00057
Greek special edition 1965-1968 Page 00089
Portuguese special edition 1965-1968 Page 00099

++++
IN JOINED CASES
9/64 : ACCIAIERIA FERRIERA DI ROMA ( FERAM ), ROME,
SOCIETA INDUSTRIALE METALLURGICA DI NAPOLI ( SIMET ), NAPLES,
AND
25/64 : MERISIDER-INDUSTRIA MERIDIONALE SIDERURGICA, CASORIA ( NAPLES ),
ACCIAIERIA CARRINO SALVATORE, NAPLES,
ACCIAIERIA ING . A . LEONE, TURIN,
FER.RO-FERRIERE ROSSI, MAGLIANO ALPI ( CUNEO ),
ACCIAIERIE SAN MICHELE, TURIN,
ALL ASSISTED BY ARTURO COTTRAU OF THE TURIN BAR, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF GEORGES MARGUE, AVOCAT-AVOUE, 20 RUE PHILIPPE-II,
APPLICANTS,
V
HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, ITALO TELCHINI, ACTING AS AGENT, ASSISTED IN CASE 9/64 BY WALTER BIGIAVI OF THE BOLOGNA BAR, PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT ITS OFFICES, 2 PLACE DE METZ,
DEFENDANT,

APPLICATION FOR REPARATION FOR DAMAGE SUFFERED BY THE APPLICANTS AS A RESULT OF THE WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY IN THE MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION OF THE COMPULSORY EQUALIZATION SCHEME FOR IMPORTED FERROUS SCRAP;

P.320
I - ADMISSIBILITY
THE DEFENDANT RAISES TWO OBJECTIONS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATIONS : FIRST, THAT THE PROCEEDINGS WERE BROUGHT OUTSIDE THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND, SECONDLY, THAT THEY ARE PREMATURE .
IT IS CONVENIENT TO CONSIDER THE SECOND OBJECTION FIRST .
IN ITS SUPPORT, THE DEFENDANT OBSERVES THAT THE ACTION UNDERTAKEN TO RECOVER THE SUMS WRONGLY PAID AND TO WIND UP THE EQUALIZATION SCHEME ARE STILL PENDING . AT PRESENT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH WITH CERTAINTY THAT THE APPLICANTS WILL SUFFER DAMAGE BY REASON OF THE ALLEGED WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION . THE APPLICATIONS OF THE APPLICANTS ARE THEREFORE, THE DEFENDANT STATES, PREMATURE AND CONSEQUENTLY INADMISSIBLE .
IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE HIGH AUTHORITY'S ACTION IN WINDING-UP THE EQUALIZATION SCHEMES IS NOT YET COMPLETE, AND THIS IS BEING REGARDED BY THE APPLICANTS AS ONE OF THE FACTORS CONSTITUTING THE ALLEGED WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANT .
AT THIS STAGE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO CALCULATE EXACTLY THE EFFECT OF THE IRREGULAR EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS ON THE CONTRIBUTIONS CHARGED EITHER TO UNDERTAKINGS SUBJECT TO THIS SCHEME IN GENERAL, OR TO THE APPLICANTS IN PARTICULAR . THE DAMAGE REFERRED TO BY THE APPLICANTS HAS NEITHER ARISEN NOR IS CERTAIN .
AT THE MOST IT IS A FUTURE DAMAGE, WHICH CAN NEITHER BE ASSESSED AT THIS POINT NOR EVEN REGARDED AS CERTAIN TO OCCUR .
FURTHER, IT WILL ALWAYS BE OPEN TO THE APPLICANTS, SHOULD THEY BE OBLIGED BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY TO PAY THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS, TO BRING LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN ORDER TO ASSERT THEIR CLAIMS .
ALTHOUGH AT PRESENT IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER EITHER THE WRONGFUL ACTS OR OMISSIONS IMPUTED TO THE HIGH AUTHORITY OR THEIR FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES, IT SHOULD BE OBSERVED THAT THESE CONSEQUENCES ARE NOT AT PRESENT CAPABLE OF ASSESSMENT AND THAT IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF THE DAMAGE REFERRED TO BY THE APPLICANTS, ITS EXTENT AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE ALLEGED WRONGFUL ACTS OR OMISSIONS, UNTIL THE FINAL ACCOUNTS ARE DRAWN UP .
THIS BEING SO, AN EXPERT ASSESSMENT APPEARS PREMATURE .
THEREFORE, THE APPLICATIONS MADE BY THE APPLICANTS ARE AT PRESENT INADMISSIBLE .

UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 69(2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
THE APPLICANTS HAVE FAILED IN THEIR SUBMISSIONS .
THEY MUST THEREFORE BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .

THE COURT
HEREBY :
1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATIONS AS INADMISSIBLE;
2 . ORDERS THE APPLICANTS TO PAY THE COSTS .

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010