Court of Justice 07-06-1966 ECLI:EU:C:1966:29

In Joined Cases

1. 29/63, SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME DES LAMINOIRS, Haute Fourneaux, Forges, Fonderies et Usines de la Providence, having its registered office at Marchienne-au-Pont, Belgium, represented by Max Nokin, Chairman of its Board of Directors;

2. 31/63, SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME DE LA FABRIQUE DE FER DE MAUBEUGE, having its registered office at Louvroil (Nord), represented by J. A. de Beco, its Chairman and General Manager;

3. 36/63, HAUTS FOURNEAUX ET FORGES DE SAULNES ET GORCY (FORMERLY RATY ET CIE), a company limited by shares, having its registered office in Paris 16, represented by Roland Labbé, its Chairman and Managing Director;

4. 39/63, ACIÉRIES ET FORGES DE FIRMINY, a company limited by shares, having its registered office in Paris 9, represented by its liquidator, Marcel Macaux;

5. 40/63, SOCIÉTÉ DES ACIÉRIES DE POMPEY, a company limited by shares, having its registered office in Pompey, Meurthe-et-Moselle, represented by R. de Gunzbourg, its Chairman and Managing Director;

6. 41/63, SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME DE L'ACIERIE ET DES LAMINOIRS DE BEAUTOR, having its registered office at Beautor (Aisne), represented by Georges Bureau, its Chairman and Managing Director;

7. 42/63, SOCIÉTÉ DES HAUTS FOURNEAUX DE ROUEN, a company limited by shares, having its registered office in Paris 9, represented by Pierre Celier, its Chairman and Managing Director;

8. 43/63, SOCIÉTÉ DES USINES SAINT-JACQUES, a company limited by shares, having its registered office in Paris 9, represented by André Guillanton, its Chairman and Managing Director;

9. 44/63, COMPAGNIE DES FORGES DE CHÂTILLON, COMMENTRY ET NEUVES-MAI-SONS, a company limited by shares, having its registered office in Paris 9, represented by Leon Bureau, its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director;

10. 45/63, SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME H. K. PORTER-FRANCE, having its registered office i Paris 8, represented by Jean Pillard, its General Works Manager, and Josep Versavel, General Secretary;

11. 46/63, UNION DES CONSOMMATEURS DE PRODUITS MÉTALLURGIQUES ET INDUSTRIELS, a company limited by shares, having its registered office in Paris 8, represented by Marcel Petiet, its Chairman and General Manager;

12. 47/63, SOCIÉTÉ FIVES-LILLE-CAIL, a company limited by shares, having its registered office in Paris 8, represented by Jacques Thibault, its Chairman and General Manager;

13. 50/63, UNION SIDÉRURGIQUE DU NORD DE LA FRANCE ‘USINOR’, a company limited by shares, having its registered office in Paris 9, represented by Maurice Borgeaud, its Managing Director;

14. 51/63, SOCIÉTÉ D'EXPLOITATION DES FORGES D'HENNEBONT, a company limited by shares, having its registered office in Paris 8, represented by Félix Portal, its Chairman and Managing Director;

assisted by Jean-Pierre Aron, Advocate of the Cour d'Appel, Paris, all with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of the Chambre Syndicate de la Sidérurgie Française, 49 boulevard Joseph-II,

applicants, v

HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY, represented by its Legal Adviser, Dr Italo Telchini, acting as Agent, and by André de Laubadère, Professor in the Faculty of Law of Paris, acting as co-Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at its offices, 2 place de Metz,

defendant,

Application for reparation, on the basis of Article 40 of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, to make good the injury caused by the wrongful act or omission on the part of the Community in operating the scheme for the equalization of imported ferrous scrap and scrap treated as such,

THE COURT

composed of: Ch. L. Hammes, President, L. Delvaux (Rapporteur), President of Chamber, A. M. Donner, A. Trabucchi and R. Lecourt, Judges,

Advocate-General: M. Lagrange (until 7 October 1964) and K. Roemer (from 8 October 1964)

Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

On 9 December 1965 the Court delivered a judgment wherein it decided all the issues in dispute save the figures concerning any damage which may have been suffered by each of the applicants and left it to the parties to agree damages between them.

The parties have notified the Court within the time prescribed of the damages which they have agreed. The calculations submitted show that five of the applicant undertakings have suffered damage assessed as follows:

29/63	Providence	FF	4  008,91
36/63	Saulnes	FF	5  358,25
43/63	Saint-Jacques	FF	3  956,42
47/63	Fives-Lille-Cail	FF	3  017,12
50/63	Usinor	FF	39  436,00

On the other hand it follows from the same calculations that the use of shipyard scrap even without the benefit of the transport parity grant was less expensive than the use of imported ferrous scrap in the cases of the applicants Maubeuge (31/63), Firminy (39/63), Pompey (40/63), Beautor (41/63), Rouen (42/63), Châtillon-Commentry (44/ 63), Porter-France (45/63), Union des consommateurs (46/63) and Hennebont (51/63). Mr Advocate-General Roemer delivered his opinion at the hearing on 18 May 1966.

Grounds of judgment

A — Substance

The parties have calculated the damage suffered by the five undertakings Providence, Saulnes, Saint-Jacques, Fives-Lille-Cail and Usinor on the basis of the principles laid down by the Court in its judgment of 9 December 1965. The High Authority must therefore be ordered to pay to the said five undertakings, by way of pecuniary reparation for its wrongful act or omission, the sums of damages calculated above. On the other hand, since the nine undertakings Maubeuge; Firminy, Pompey, Beautor, Rouen, Châtillon-Commentry, Porter-France, Union des consommateurs and Hennebont have not suffered any damage their applications must fail.

B — Costs

Under Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure the unsuccessful party shall be ordered to pay the costs. In Cases 31/63 (Maubeuge), 39/63 (Firminy), 40/63 (Pompey), 41/63 (Beautor), 42/63 (Rouen), 44/63 (Châtillon-Commentry), 45/63 (Porter-France), 46/63 (Union des consommateurs) and 51/63 (Hennebont), the applicant parties have failed in their submissions and must be ordered to pay the costs. On the other hand, in Cases 29/63 (Providence), 36/63 (Saulnes), 43/63 (Saint-Jacques), 47-63 (Fives-Lille-Cail) and 50/63 (Usinor), the defendant has essentially failed in its submissions and must be ordered to pay the whole of the costs relating to these Cases.

The judgment must provide for each of the parties in question to bear a fixed proportion of the costs thereof. Further, it is necessary to stipulate finally the proportion of the costs falling on those undertakings which discontinued their applications and were accordingly, by orders dated 5 November 1963 and 24 September 1965, ordered to bear the costs attributable to their respective cases incurred up to the date of the said orders. Since the eight undertakings referred to in the order of 5 November 1963 discontinued their applications before the Court decided to call for an expert's report it is necessary to divide the costs into two parts, the first comprising all the costs of the proceedings save those of the expert's report and the second comprising the costs occasioned by the report.

1. Costs other than those occasioned by the expert's report

It appears to be fair that the eight undertakings referred to in the order of 5 November 1963 should each bear one third of the costs which are to be borne by each of the applicants whose applications are dismissed by this judgment and chat the undertaking Creusot, referred to in the order of 24 September 1965, should bear the remaining two thirds of such costs. Accordingly the costs, save those occasioned by the expert's report, shall be borne as follows:

1. by each of the applicants Maubeuge, Firminy, Pompey, Beautor, Rouen, Châtillon-Commentry, Porter-France, Union des consommateurs and Hennebont to the extent of three fifty-second parts each;

2. by the defendant to the extent of fifteen fifty-second parts;

3. by each of the undertakings referred to in the order of 5 November 1963 to the extent of one fifty-second part;

4. by the undertaking Creusot, referred to in the order of 24 September 1965, to the extent of two fifty-second parts.

2. Costs occasioned by the expert's report

As regards the expert's fees and expenses in connexion with his report, account must be taken of the fact that the undertaking Creusot discontinued its action only after the expert's report had been lodged. The costs occasioned by the expert's report must therefore be borne as follows:

1. by each of the applicants Maubeuge, Firminy, Pompey, Beautor, Rouen, Châtillon-Commentry, Porter-France, Union des consommateurs and Hennebout to the extent of one fifteenth;

2. by the defendant to the extent of five fifteenths;

3. by the undertaking Creusot, referred to in the order of 24 September 1965, to the extent of one fifteenth.

On those grounds,

Having regard to the judgment of the Court of 9 December 1965,⁽²⁾

Upon reading the pleadings;

Upon hearing the parties on 18 May 1966;

Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General;

Having regard to Articles 40 and 53 of the Treaty establishing the ECSC;

Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the ECSC;

Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, especially Article 69 (2);

THE COURT

hereby:

1. Orders the defendant to pay by way of pecuniary reparation for its wrongful act or omission:

   1. to the Société Anonyme des Laminoirs, Hauts Fourneaux, Forges, Fonderies et Usines de la Providence, the sum of four thousand and eight French francs and ninety-one centimes (FF 4008.91);

   2. to Hauts Fourneaux et Forges de Saulnes et Gorcy the sum of five thousand three hundred and fifty-eight French francs and twenty-five centimes (FF 5358.25);

   3. to the Société des Usines Saint-Jacques the sum of three thousand nine hundred and fifty-six French francs and two centimes (FF 3956.02);

   4. to the Société Fives-Lille-Cail the sum of three thousand and seventeen French francs and twelve centimes (FF 3017.12);

   5. to the Union Sidérurgique du Nord de la France (‘Usinor’) the sum of thirty-nine thousand four hundred and thirty-six French francs (FF 39436);

2. Dismisses as unfounded Applications 31/63, 39/63, 40/63, 41/63, 42/63, 44/63, 45/63, 46/63 and 51/63;

3. Orders the defendant High Authority to bear five-fifteenths of the costs occasioned by the expert's report and fifteen fifty-second parts of the remainning costs of the proceedings;

4. Orders the Société Anonyme de la Fabrique de Fer de Maubeuge, Aciéries et Forges de Firminy, the Société des Aciéries de Pompey, the Société Anonyme de l'Acierie et des Laminoirs de Beautor, the Société des Hauts Fourneaux de Rouen, the Société Anonyme H. K. Porter-France, the Union des Consommateurs de Produits Métallurgiques et Industriels and the Société d'Exploitation des Forges d'Hennebont each to bear one-fifteenth of the costs occasioned by the expert's report and three fifty-second parts of the remaining costs of the proceedings;

5. Orders the eight undertakings against which costs were awarded by the Court's order of 5 November 1963 each to bear one-fifty-second part of the costs of the proceedings save those occasioned by the expert's report;

6. Orders the undertaking against which costs were awarded by the Court's order of 24 September 1965 to bear one-fifteenth of the costs occasioned by the expert's report and two fifty-second parts of the remaining costs of the proceedings.

Hammes

Delvaux

Donner

Trabucchi

Lecourt

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 7 June 1966.

A. Van Houtte

Registrar

Ch. L. Hammes

President