Reports of Cases before the Court
488 pages
English
Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

Reports of Cases before the Court

-

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus
488 pages
English

Informations

Publié par
Nombre de lectures 30
Langue English
Poids de l'ouvrage 15 Mo

Exrait

COURT OF JUSTICE
OFTHE
EUROPEANCOMMUNITIES
Reports
of
CasesbeforetheCourt
1967
LUXEMBOURGThesereports are publishedbytheCourtof Justice; they may be reproduced,
providedthe sourceisacknowledged.Themodeofcitationofa judgment
inthisvolumeshallbe asfollows: Case15/67 Bauerv Commissionof the
EuropeanCommunities[1967]E.C.R. 397.
The head-noteofajudgment hasnobindingforceandisinnowayto be
regardedasanauthenticinterpretationofthejudgment summarized
therein.
Texts bearingthe footnote'CMLR' are basedontranslationsfrom Common
MarketLawReports,publishedbyCommonLawReportsLtd.,of Elm
House,ElmStreet,LondonWC1XOBB.Thirdpartiesreproducing such
textsare requestedtoacknowledgethattheyarebasedon translations
originally publishedbyCommonLaw ReportsLtd.inthe Common Market
LawReports.
OFFICE FOROFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS OFTHE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Boîte postale1003—Luxembourg 6430TableofCasesreportedinVolume1967
Joined Cases9and58/65:AcciaierieSanMicheleSpA(inliquidation)
vHighAuthorityofthe ECSC
JudgmentoftheCourtof2March1967 1
OpinionofMr Advocate-General Roemerdeliveredon 14 December1966 14
OrderoftheCourtof22June1965 27
JoinedCases25and26/65:SocietàIndustrialeMetallurgicadiNapoli
(Simet)andAcciaierieeFerrierediRoma(Feram)vHighAuthority
ofthe ECSC
JudgmentoftheCourtof2March1967 33
OpinionofMrAdvocate-GeneralGanddeliveredon14December1966 48
JoinedCases 18and35/65:MaxGutmannvCommissionoftheEAEC
JudgmentoftheCourt(First Chamber)of 15March1967 61
OpinionofMr Advocate-General Roemer deliveredon9February1967 68
JoinedCases8to11/66:SociétéAnonymeCimenteriesCBRCement­
bedrijvenNVandOthers,CementfabriekIJmuiden(Cemij)NV,
EersteNederlandseCementIndustrie(ENCI)NV,and Alsen'sche
Portland-Cement-FabrikenKGandOthersvCommissionofthe EEC
JudgmentoftheCourtof15March1967 75
OpinionofMrAdvocate-GeneralRoemerdeliveredon15March1967 95
Case25/65:SocietàIndustrialeMetallurgicadiNapoli(Simet)vHigh
Authorityofthe ECSC
OrderoftheCourt(Second Chamber)of26May1967 113
Case26/66:KoninklijkeNederlandscheHoogovensenStaalfabrieken
NVvHighAuthorityofthe ECSC
JudgmentoftheCourtof 14June1967 115
OpinionofMr Advocate-General Roemer deliveredon2May 1967 128
Case28/64REV:RichardMüllervCounciloftheEECandCouncilof
theEAEC
JudgmentoftheCourt (Second Chamber)of22June 1967 141
Case10/67:JohannesCoenraadMoulijnvCommissionofthe EEC
JudgmentoftheCourt (Second Chamber)of22June 1967 147
OpinionofMr Advocate-GeneralGanddeliveredon 14June1967 151
ITABLE OF CASES REPORTEDIN VOLUME 1967
Case 12/66:AlfredWillamevCommissionoftheEAEC
JudgmentoftheCourt(First Chamber)of22June 1967 153
OpinionofMr Advocate-General Roemerdeliveredon17May1967 169
Case1/67:ReferenceforapreliminaryrulingunderArticle 177of the
EECTreatybytheSocialChamberoftheCourd'Appel,Orléans
(France),intheactionpendingbeforethatcourtbetweenStanlislas
CiechelskiandCaisseRégionaledeSécuritéSocialedu Centre,
Orléans,togetherwithDirecteurRégionaldelaSécurité Sociale
d'Orléans
JudgmentoftheCourtof5July1967 181
OpinionofMrAdvocate-GeneralGanddeliveredon17May1967 191
Case2/67:ReferenceforapreliminaryrulingunderArticle 177of the
EECTreatybytheCourSupérieuredeJustice,Luxembourg,sitting
asaCourdeCassation,intheactionpendingbeforethatcourtbetween
AugustedeMoorandCaissedePensiondesEmployésPrivés
JudgmentoftheCourtof5July1967 197
OpinionofMr Advocate-GeneralRoemer deliveredon1June1967 209
Case6/67:ReferenceforapreliminaryrulingunderArticle177of the
EECTreatybytheBelgianConseild'Étatintheactionpendingbefore
thatcourtbetweenTeresaPace(neeGuerra)andInstitutNational
d'AssuranceMaladie-Invalidité, Brussels
JudgmentoftheCourtof5July1967 219
OpinionofMr Advocate-GeneralGanddeliveredon13June1967 225
Case9/67:ReferenceforapreliminaryrulingunderArticle177of
theEECTreatybytheCourd'Appel,Paris,intheactionpending
beforethatcourtbetweenKurtColditzandCaissed'Assurance
VieillessedesTravailleursSalariésdeParis
JudgmentoftheCourtof5July1967 229
OpinionofMr Advocate-GeneralRoemer deliveredon14June1967 236
Case29/66R:MaxGutmannvCommissionoftheEAEC
Orderofthe PresidentoftheFirst ChamberoftheCourtof 28 November
1966 241
JoinedCases5, 7and 13to24/66:FirmaE.KampffmeyerandOthers v
Commissionofthe EEC
JudgmentoftheCourtof14July1967 245
OpinionofMr Advocate-GeneralGanddeliveredon 19April 1967 269
Case1/66R:SpAAcciaierieeFerriereStefanaFratellivHigh
AuthorityoftheECSC
Orderofthe PresidentoftheCourtof17March1966 283
Case30/66:FirmaKurtA.BechervCommissionoftheEuropean
Communities
JudgmentoftheCourtof30November1967 285
OpinionofMr Advocate-GeneralGand deliveredon7November1967 302
IITABLEOF CASES REPORTEDIN VOLUME 1967
Case18/67:ReferenceforapreliminaryrulingunderArticle177of
theEECTreatybytheBelgianConseild'Étatintheactionpending
beforethatcourtbetweenArgiaPagotto(néeCossutta)and Office
NationaldesPensionspourOuvriers, Brussels
JudgmentoftheCourtof30November1967 309
OpinionofMr Advocate-General Roemer deliveredon8November1967 315
Case22/67:ReferenceforapreliminaryrulingunderArticle177of
theEECTreatybytheSecondCivilChamberoftheFrenchCour de
Cassationintheactionpendingbeforethatcourtbetween Caisse
RégionaledeSécuritéSocialeduNord-EstandRobertGoffart
JudgmentoftheCourtof30November 1967 321
OpinionofMr Advocate-GeneralGanddeliveredon8November1967 329
Case14/67:ReferenceforapreliminaryrulingunderArticle 177of the
EECTreatybytheIVthSenateoftheBundessozialgerichtin the
actionpendingbeforethatcourtbetweenLandesversicherungsanstalt
Rheinland-Pfalz,Speyer,andJosefWelchner
JudgmentoftheCourtof5 December 1967 331
OpinionofMr Advocate-GeneralGand deliveredon8November1967 340
Case19/67:ReferenceforapreliminaryrulingunderArticle177of
theEECTreatybytheCentraleRaadvanBeroepintheactionpending
beforethatcourtbetweenBestuurderSocialeVerzekeringsbankand
J.H.vanderVecht
JudgmentoftheCourtof5December1967 345
OpinionofMr Advocate-GeneralGand deliveredon8November1967 357
Case4/67:AnneMuller(néeCollignon)vCommissionoftheEuropean
Communities
JudgmentoftheCourt(FirstChamber)of12 December1967 365
OpinionofMrAdvocate-GeneralRoemer deliveredon21November1967 375
Case 11/67:ReferenceforapreliminaryrulingunderArticle177of the
EECTreatybytheBelgianConseild'Étatintheactionpendingbefore
thatcourtbetweenOfficeNationaldesPensionspourOuvriers and
MarcelCouture
JudgmentoftheCourtof12 December 1967 379
OpinionofMr Advocate-General Roemer deliveredon8November1967 391
Case15/67:AloisBauervCommissionoftheEuropeanCommunities
JudgmentoftheCourt(FirstChamber)of12 December1967 397
OpinionofMr Advocate-GeneralRoemer deliveredon21November1967 404
Case23/67:ReferenceforapreliminaryrulingunderArticle 177of the
EECTreatybytheTribunaldeCommerce,Liège,intheaction pend­
ingbeforethatcourtbetweenS.A.BrasseriedeHaechtand Oscar
andMarieWilkin
JudgmentoftheCourtof 12 December1967 407
OpinionofMr Advocate-GeneralRoemer deliveredon21November1967 417
IIITABLEOF CASES REPORTEDINVOLUME 1967
Case12/67:ReferenceforapreliminaryrulingunderArticle177of
theEECTreatybytheBelgianConseild'Étatintheaction pending
beforethatcourtbetweenJulesGuissartandBelgian State
JudgmentoftheCourtof13 December 1967 425
OpinionofMr Advocate-GeneralRoemer deliveredon8November1967 435
Case17/67:ReferenceforapreliminaryrulingunderArticle177of
theEECTreatybytheBundesfinanzhofintheactionpending before
thatcourtbetweenFirmaMaxNeumannandHauptzollamtHof/Saale
JudgmentoftheCourtof 13 December 1967 441
OpinionofMrAdvocate-General Roemer deliveredon21November1967 458
IndexofParties 471
AlphabeticalIndexofSubjectMatter. 475
IndexofProvisionsjudiciallyconsidered 481
IVJUDGMENT OF THE COURT
1
2 MARCH 1967
Acciaierie San Michele SpA (in liquidation)
High of the ECSCv Authority
Joined Cases 9 and 58/65
Summary
ECSC —I. the Financial — Equalization — NormalarrangementsLiability of
—disadvantages Absence harmof
—2. Common financial Equalization — Calculationarrangements ferrousof scrap

—contributions Estimated assessment Conditionsof
(ECSC ArticleTreaty, 53)
1. Cf. under­para. Joined Cases must prove that the1, summary, Authority
26 and 27/60 in has failed14, 16, 17, 20, 24, question either totaking
and Rec. p. 323.1/61, 1961, informationproduce the necessary
for its contributions or to2. In order to be entided to make an calculating
in ofproof support it.estimated the Highassessment, supply
In Joined Cases 9 58/65and
liquida­itsAcciaierie San Michele SpA in liquidation represented),(­ by
Gianni Arturo Cottrau of the Turin with anassisted Bar,tor, Delzano, by
for in Chambers of Georgesaddress service at the Margue,Luxembourg
applicant,
v
repre­High Authority of European Coal Steel Communitythe and ,
Giacchi Milansented its Italio assisted Orio of theAgent, Telchini, byby
with an address for service in at its 2 placeBar, offices,Luxembourg
de Metz,
defendant,
Application:
— for the annulment of
individual decisions Novemberthe of 13 1964 the tonnage of(a) fixing
ferrous forassessable and the applicant's debt to the scheme thescrap
equalization of imported ferrous scrap;
1 — Language Italian.of the Case:
1JUDGMENT OF 2. 3. 1967 — JOINED CASES 9 AND 58/65
of other individual decisions 5 October the saidof 1965,(b) amending
tonnage and the said debt;
— General Decisions Nosobjections of with reference to theraising illegality
7/61 and 7/63;
— for damages for an alleged wrongful act or omission on the part of the
High Authority,
THE COURT
Ch. Trabucchi R.composed of: L. A. and Monaco,Hammes, President,
Presidents Lecourtof L. A. M. R.Chambers, Delvaux, Donner, (Rapporteur)
and W. Strauß, Judges,
Advocate-General: RoemerK.
Registrar: A. Van Houtte
gives the following
JUDGMENT
Issues of fact and of law
legal­
—I the facts Corte Costituzionale Italiana on theofSummary
ECSC within the Italianof theity Treaty
Novem­individual decision of 13 legal question raised thean aBy system, by
ber High fixed Tribunale di Torino in another actionthe the1964, Authority
betweenprovisional amount of the equalization the same parties.
under­debts San 22 June Courtowed the Michele an order of theby By 1965,
144 055 664 lire.taking at dismissed this application.
Appli­This decision 28 Highwas contested a letter of theby By January 1966,
9/65. that incation notified the applicantAuthority
de­The San decisionMichele was implementation of 'the generalundertaking
Tri­decree (Decision Noclared insolvent of 'the of 15 December 1965by
di Salluzzo 22 1965. finalbunale dated June it had fixed the rates of the19/65)
con­A Octobernew individual decision of 5 equalization contributions and that
1965 fixed the amount of its debt at the balance due Sanbysequently
252 494237 809 302 lire. Michele was increased to 640
Appli­This decision was contested lire.by
cation 58/65. On of this which indicatedreceipt letter,
de­On 27 April the on the in that it did not constitute a1965, applicant, a note
Pro­ itbasis of Article 91 of the Rules of cision but was an intimation that
sus­requested to be be enforceable if payment wereproceedings wouldcedure,
appli-judgment 30 March 1966 thepended the of the not onpending made,
2HIGH AUTHORITYSAN MICHELE v
Article 91 between 25 and 30 June and acant raised an objection under 1958,
the Rules Procedure. report Mr Chaudat to a checkof of by relating
2 Court carried out Mr Chaudat and Mran order of June theBy 1966, by
be­decision the defendant'sreserved its on the objection Astorri, inspectors,
judgment. tween 2 9 October 1962.for the final and
On 30 June 1966 the applicant lodged
Author­
a statement on the Highcalling
docu­to produce the original of a II — Conclusionsity of the
ment the of which wasphotocopy parties
incomplete.allegedly
an 13 the Court Applica­order ofBy July 1966, The applicant in itsclaimed,
find­took official the Registrar'snote of tion that the Court should:9/65,
inthat 'the produced theing photocopy
'1. Declare that the individual decisions
proceedings corresponded to the original
of 13 November 1964 (notified to thedefendant.produced by the
applicant on 24 December arenor­ 1964)The written procedure followed the
infringe­
vitiated on the grounds of
mal course.
re­ment of an essential proceduralIn a schedule to the the applicantreply,
infringement of thequirement, Treatylodged three documents: theaccounting
and misuse of powers thereforeandjournal (1957 to the balance1958),
annul them;sheet book (31 December 1956 to 31
sum­December and register1960) the 2. Declare General Decision Nothat
the (1957movement of stocks 7/63 is themarizing vitiated on grounds of
to 1965). pro­infringement of an essential
The parties letterwere requested a infringementby cedural ofrequirement,
from the Registrar dated 9 November the and misuse ofTreaty powers;
1966 into state prior to the defendant bearwriting, order the to the costs;
fol­in fixed foropen court thehearing
of inquiry:By way
23 whether the saidlowing November,
con­3. Order that all the documentssub­documents had beenaccounting
theinvestiga­ declarations, calculations,High Authority's cerningmitted to the
checks and written evidencebefore decisions relatingtors the contested were
to the purchase of ferrous byscrapadopted.
the applicant (documents in the handsThe inapplicant replied the affirmative.
of the High together withAuthority)The defendant replied that theonly
inspec­the reports drawn theup bybalance sheet book had been submitted
tors the Mr Mrof ECSC, Lepape,to the investigators. At the onhearing
Chaudat MrJudge-Rappor­ and Astorri, and those23 November 1966 the
drawn Société Fiduciairetheup byteur asked two in connexionquestions
Suisse beshould produced to the
with the contested decision, regarding
Court and notified to the applicant;the reference it to theby accounting
documents the defendant's toand 4. Allowreply the production of the annexed
the Registrar's letter. documents;
Advocate-Gen­At the same thehearing,
wit­5. Admit proof the evidence ofby
re­foreral asked the production of the
pur­nesses and inquiries for theby
Mr inspectorport of Chaudat, an of the
pose of the opinion of aobtainingHigh inspectionand otherAuthority,
technical the matters forexpert, such
reports.
set out in detailproof being below;
On 25 November the defendant1966,
6. Summon as witnesses Mrlodged a report the Société Anonyme Mrby Lepape,
In-Chaudat Mr AstorriFiduciaire Suisse of checks carried out and of the
3—JUDGMENT OF 2. 3. 1967 JOINED CASES 9 AND 58/65
corres­The defendant itsspection Directorate of the High contended in
Mr Mr Montavon statement of defence that theAuthority, Rochat, ponding
Courtand Mr Egger of the Fiduciaire Suisse should:
and Mr Lionello Mr 'dismiss as unfounded the application ofRenaldi,
Giacomo Aragno Mr Armando 16 1965 made San Micheleand January by
Castelli the Acciaierie San Michele SpA against the two individual decisionsof
with Mr Gianni of 13 November 1964 thetogether and orderundertaking
director in to the of action'.the charge of applicant costs theDelzanno, pay
legal The in its Applicationthe affairs of the applicant claimedsteelworks;
58/65 that the Court should:
Matters for proof the evidence ofby
admis­'declare the present application
witnesses
ible;
1. Is it true that the Acciaierie San the documents theorder all torelating
Michele began its activities in the iron bepresent case to transmitted to the
and steel on 1 1957 Court inand notified to theindustry February applicant,
Proto­and that it was from that date Article 23accordance with of theonly
that it ferrous scrap? Statute Courtpurchased col on the of the of
Justice;2. Is it true that the consumption of
declare illegal ana toformally contrarybefore 1 1957electricity February
'supple­the facts the assessment of the
to the limitedpertains company
mentary'
quantities of assessable scrapinto difficulties'ISAP', which ran
(17 497 metric that a sum ofis,tons,the 1956and was succeeded at end of
appli­122 696 963 for which the
com­ lire)San Michele as a result of aby
de­is liablecant made the contestedby
position?
cision:
3. Is it Santrue that the Acciaierie them-
annul the decisionsconsequently
trans­Michele's furnaceelectric and
selves for infringement anof essential
former in 1930?were purchased infringementprocedural ofrequirement,
4. Is it Acciaierie San the and misuse oftrue that the Treaty powers;
Michele pursuant to the first paragraph or Articleundertaking's 4 metric ton
declare40 of the ECSC that theelectric furnace operated Treaty,capacity
High is of a wrongfuleight hours a (one on Authorityday guiltyshift)
act or omission in that itdays? wrongfullyworking
failed to prevent a considerable number
Matters, opin­for proof means of theby
of acts of fraud (involving roughly
ion of a technical expert
350 000 metric tons at the time of the
com­5. The expert appointed the Court 11th General fromReport)by being
under­should state what were the average mitted against the iron and steel
prices in the takings throughout the duration of theprevailing Community
for internal bought 1 scheme for the equalizationbetweenscrap obligatory
April 1954 30 November 1958 of bought ferrous (the Highand scrap
what the average itself admitted in its 9th andand were prices Authority
international 11th General Reports that these fraudson the marketprevailing
for imported ferrous had takenscrap (taking place);
forinto account the average tonnages of remit the question consideration aby
ap­2 baled beNo and of American committee of experts toscrap officially
machine the prices of which pointed the Court and submit to itscrap, by
actu­
were quoted at less than 10 dollars all questions the injurieswhereby
com­and less than 4 dollars metric ton suffered the undertakingsper ally by
between 1 April 1954 under the equalization schemerespectively) ing may
pur-
and 30 November 1958'. be even approximately;calculated,
4