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) >> Chambre syndicale de la siderurgie francaise and others v High Authority of the ECSC. (Procedure ) [1965] EUECJ C-4/64 (8 July 1965)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1965/C464.html
Cite as: [1965] EUECJ C-4/64

[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.

61964J0003
Judgment of the Court of 8 July 1965.
Chambre syndicale de la sidérurgie française and others v High Authority of the ECSC.
Joined cases 3 and 4-64.
European Court reports
French edition 1965 Page 00567
Dutch edition 1965 Page 00668
German edition 1965 Page 00596
Italian edition 1965 Page 00826
English special edition 1965 Page 00441
Danish special edition 1965-1968 Page 00093
Greek special edition 1965-1968 Page 00125
Portuguese special edition 1965-1968 Page 00153

++++
1 . PROCEDURE - APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT - GENERAL DECISION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE ECSC - APPLICANT UNDERTAKINGS - MISUSE OF POWERS - ALLEGATION - ADMISSIBILITY
( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 33 )
2 . MEASURES ADOPTED BY AN INSTITUTION - GENERAL DECISION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE ECSC - CONCEPT
( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 33 )
3 . MEASURES ADOPTED BY AN INSTITUTION - GENERAL DECISION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE ECSC - POSSIBILITY OF MISAPPLICATION - ABSENCE OF MISUSE OF POWERS AFFECTING AN UNDERTAKING
( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 33 )

1 . FOR AN APPLICATION BY AN UNDERTAKING AGAINST A GENERAL DECISION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY TO BE ADMISSIBLE, THE UNDERTAKING IN QUESTION MUST CONVINCINGLY POINT TO FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATING THE PROBABILITY THAT IN THIS INSTANCE THE HIGH AUTHORITY, THROUGH WANT OF FORESIGHT OR SERIOUS LACK OF CARE AMOUNTING TO DISREGARD FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW, HAS PURSUED OTHER OBJECTIVES THAN THOSE FOR WHICH THE POWERS PROVIDED BY THE TREATY WERE CONFERRED UPON IT .
CF . PARA . 2, SUMMARY, CASE 8/57, ( 1958 ) ECR 227 .
2 . A GENERAL DECISION IS ONE WHICH ESTABLISHES A LEGISLATIVE PRINCIPLE, LAYING DOWN CONDITIONS FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION AND SETTING OUT THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES RESULTING FROM THEM .
CF . PARA . 5, SUMMARY, CASE 13/57, ( 1958 ) ECR 265 .
3 . A GENERAL DECISION IS NOT VITIATED BY MISUSE OF POWERS AGAINST AN UNDERTAKING BY THE MERE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THAT DECISION MIGHT BE DISCRIMINATORY OR INCOMPLETE, ABOVE ALL SINCE THE REMEDY AGAINST SUCH A POSSIBILITY LIES IN THE VIGILANCE OF THE PERSONS CONCERNED WHO, UNDER ARTICLE 33, ARE ENABLED TO CONTEST THE IMPLEMENTING MEASURES CONCERNING THEM ON ALL THE GROUNDS SET OUT IN THE SAID PROVISION .

APPLICATION :
( A ) ( APPLICATION 3/64 ): FOR THE ANNULMENT OF ARTICLE 1(2 ) AND ARTICLES 2 ( ARTICLES 7, 8 AND 9 ) OF DECISION NO 19/63, AND OF ARTICLE 1(2 ) AND ( 3 ), ARTICLE 2(1 ) AND ( 2 ) AND ARTICLE 3 OF DECISION NO 20/63;
( B ) ( APPLICATION 4/64 ): FOR THE ANNULMENT OF ARTICLE 1(2 ) AND ARTICLE 2 ( ARTICLES 7, 8 AND 9 ) OF DECISION NO 19/63 AND OF ARTICLE 1(2 ) AND ( 3 ), ARTICLE 2 AND ARTICLE 3 OF DECISION NO 21/63;

P.454
I - ADMISSIBILITY
UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 33 OF THE TREATY, UNDERTAKINGS OR ASSOCIATIONS OF UNDERTAKINGS MAY INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNULMENT AGAINST GENERAL DECISIONS ONLY IF THE LATTER ARE ALLEGED TO INVOLVE A MISUSE OF POWERS AFFECTING THEM .
THE CONTESTED MEASURES ESTABLISHED A LEGISLATIVE PRINCIPLE, LAYING DOWN CONDITIONS FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION AND SETTING OUT THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES RESULTING FROM THEM; THEY ARE THEREFORE GENERAL DECISIONS .
FURTHERMORE, THIS GENERAL NATURE IS NOT DISPUTED IN THE ACTION .
CONSEQUENTLY, FOR THEIR APPLICATIONS TO BE ADMISSIBLE, THE APPLICANTS MUST CONVINCINGLY POINT TO FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INDICATING THE PROBABILITY THAT IN THIS INSTANCE THE HIGH AUTHORITY, THROUGH WANT OF FORESIGHT, OR SERIOUS LACK OF CARE AMOUNTING TO DISREGARD FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW, HAS PURSUED OTHER OBJECTIVES THAN THOSE FOR WHICH THE POWERS PROVIDED BY THE TREATY WERE CONFERRED UPON IT .
P.455
THE APPLICANTS HAVE NOT FULFILLED THAT REQUIREMENT .
THE FIRST COMPLAINT MADE AGAINST THE HIGH AUTHORITY, THAT IS, OF HAVING ACTED BY MEANS OF A DECISION AND NOT BY MEANS OF A RECOMMENDATION, IS REDUCED TO A SUBMISSION OF LACK OF COMPETENCE BASED ON AN ANALYSIS OF ARTICLE 63 OF THE TREATY .
THIS COMPLAINT, EVEN IF IT COULD BE JUSTIFIED, IS NOT SUCH AS TO LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE HIGH AUTHORITY IN THIS CASE PURSUED OBJECTIVES OTHER THAN THOSE FOR WHICH THE POWERS PROVIDED IN ARTICLE 63 WERE CONFERRED ON IT AND THAT IT THEREBY COMMITTED A MISUSE OF POWERS AGAINST THE APPLICANTS .
THE SECOND SUBMISSION CONSISTS IN ALLEGING THAT THE CONTESTED GENERAL DECISIONS INTENDED TO ESTABLISH A SYSTEM DISTORTING NORMAL CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION, SUBJECTING MIDDLEMEN, WHOSE ECONOMIC FUNCTION IS IDENTICAL, TO A DIFFERENT SYSTEM SOLELY ON THE FOOTING OF THEIR DIFFERING LEGAL STRUCTURE .
THIS ALLEGATION AMOUNTS TO ACCUSING THE HIGH AUTHORITY OF EMPLOYING LEGAL RATHER THAN ECONOMIC CRITERIA, WHICH, IF IT WERE TRUE, WOULD BE INSUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A MISUSE OF POWERS .
THEREFORE THE SECOND SUBMISSION IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE MISUSE OF POWERS IN QUESTION .
FINALLY, THE THIRD PLEA BASED ON THE ALLEGATION OF A LACK OF CARE AMOUNTING TO A DISREGARD FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE LAW IS BASED ON A DETAILED CRITICISM OF PUBLISHED TEXTS, WITH THE AIM OF PROVING THAT THE SAID TEXTS CONTAIN A SERIES OF UNCERTAINTIES AND OBSECURITIES WHICH COULD HARM THE APPLICANT'S OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMPETITION .
HOWEVER, THE MERE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE APPLICATION OF A TEXT MIGHT BE DISCRIMINATORY OR INCOMPLETE IS INSUFFICIENT TO VITIATE IT, ABOVE ALL SINCE THE REMEDY AGAINST SUCH A POSSIBILITY LIES IN THE VIGILANCE OF THE PERSONS CONCERNED WHO, UNDER ARTICLE 33, ARE ENABLED TO CONTEST THE IMPLEMENTING MEASURES CONCERNING THEM ON ALL THE GROUNDS SET OUT IN THE SAID PROVISION .
THUS THE LAST PLEA ALSO FAILS TO ESTABLISH MISUSE OF POWERS .
IT FOLLOWS FROM THIS THAT APPLICATIONS 3 AND 4/64 MUST BE DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE .

UNDER ARTICLE 69(2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
IN THIS CASE, SINCE THE APPLICANTS HAVE FAILED IN THEIR ACTION, THEY MUST BEAR THE COSTS .

THE COURT
HEREBY :
1 . DISMISSES APPLICATIONS 3/64 AND 4/64 AS INADMISSIBLE;
2 . ORDERS THE APPLICANTS TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE ACTION .