No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The case law of the European Coal and Steel Community Court of Justice
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2009
Extract
Among the institutions created by the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (E.C.S.C.), the Court of Justice deserves special attention of lawyers interested in the development of international organisation. Indeed the position of this Court within the framework of the Treaty is profoundly original insofar as its functions cover the judicial settlement of disputes between member states and the judicial review of the decisions of other institutions of the E.C.S.C. on the complaint of the private individuals involved. Furthermore the Court is entrusted with a few tasks of a “constitutional” character, such as giving a binding opinion on the applicability of the special procedure of amending the Treaty before the proposed amendment is put to the final vote (art. 95).
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1955
References
page 384 note 1 Other instances are the powers of the Court under art. 10, penultimate paragraph, and art. 12, second paragraph.
page 384 note 2 I may refer to my paper on “De juridische structuur der E.G.K.S. (The legal structure of the E.C.S.C.), recently published by the Cornelis van Vol-lenhoven Stichting.
page 384 note 3 Unless otherwise indicated the present survey, when referring to articles of the E.C.S.C. Treaty, follows the terminology used in the English Translation published by the High Authority. The single authentic text is in French.
page 385 note 1 The French text reads: “qu'elles estiment entachées de détournement de pouvoir à leur égard”.
page 386 note 1 Published in “Journal Officiel de la Communauté Européenne du charbon et de l'acier”, 11 01 1955.Google Scholar
page 386 note 2 “Journal Officiel”, 11 01 1955.Google Scholar
page 386 note 3 “Journal Officiel”, 1st of 03, 1955.Google Scholar
page 387 note 1 “Journal Officiel”, 28 03 1955.Google Scholar
page 388 note 1 We prefer the translation of the French “arrêt” into “judgment” instead of “ruling”, which is the word used in the translation published by the High Authority.
page 388 note 2 “Journal Officiel”, 23 07 1955.Google Scholar
page 389 note 1 The relevant part of the Court's judgment reads as follows: “cette preuve sera nécessaire pour établir le bien-fondé des recours — mais cette question relève de l'examen au fond et ne concerne pas la recevabilité”.
page 389 note 2 “…. il suffit pour la recevabilité du recours que la partie requérante allèçue formellement un détournement de pouvoir à son égard, …. cette allégation devra indiquer les raisons dont découlent (plural in the published text W.R.), selon l'opinion de la partie requérante, le détournement de pouvoir à son égard”.
page 389 note 3 Furthermore the Court decided that in the case of an appeal lodged by an association of enterprises there is an abuse of power “affecting it” when the abuse of power affects one or more of the enterprises members of the association (judgments nos. 3/54 and 4/54).
page 390 note 1 In the French text the judgment: “Attendu qu'à ces fins, l'article 33 n'exige pas quant au grief soulevé une preuve complète et préalable, dont l'administration entraînerait d'ailleurs d'emblée l'annulation de la décision au titre d'une violation du Traité;
Que d'autre part, la simple assertion d'une violation patente ne saurait suffire pour ouvrir l'accès au contrôle par la Cour de l'appréciation économique, sous peine de faire dégénérer ce moyen en clause de pure style;
Qu'il faut et qu'il suffit que le grief se trouve accompagnéd'indices pertinents;”
page 391 note 1 “Art. 23. When an appeal is taken against a decision of one of the institutions of the Community, that institution must transmit to the Court all the documents relating to the case before the Court.
Art. 24. The Court may ask the parties, their representatives or officials and employees, as well as the governments of the member States, to produce all documents and furnish all information which the Court considers desirable. In case of refusal, the Court shall take judicial notice thereof.”
page 391 note 2 “…. que les dispositions du Traité ne sauraient être interprétées que dans le sens le plus favorable au bon fonctionnement des Institutions de la Communauté”.
page 392 note 1 The ordinance of Nov. 6, 1954 was given by a division of the Court.
page 394 note 1 Published in “Revue du Droit Public et de la Science Politique en France et à l'Etranger”, 01–03 1955.Google Scholar
page 395 note 1 Another question is the matter of damages. According to the third sentence of art. 34 the Court may in its judgment on an appeal for annulment, declare that the decision involves a fault for which the Community is liable. If the private party presents a petition to this effect, as a part of the request for annulment, there could still be an interest for him in getting a judgment of the Court, even if, after the appeal has been lodged, the decision of the High Authority is annulled or repealed. It would seem that in such a case the Court would pronounce itself on the question of fault, unless it considers necessary a separate appeal on damages, either under the last paragraph of art. 34 or under art. 40.
page 395 note 2 This point of view has been explained to some length in the paper, quoted supra p. 384, note 2.
page 397 note 1 For the sake of brevity we leave here out of account the complications resulting from the basing-point system and the possibility of aligning quotations.
page 402 note 1 This would seem to imply that the Court regards measures against cartels as a form of more extended government control in economic affairs, a thesis which might surprise some of the protagonists of anti-trust legislation in the United States!
page 402 note 2 It may be recalled that recommendations are binding with respect to the objectives which they specify. See the third paragraph of art. 14.
page 404 note 1 In the French text: “…. cet argument n'aurait de valeur que si, en vertu du Traité, les ententes en concentrations contraires aux dits articles se trouvaient privées de tout effet de droit”.
page 404 note 2 In the French text: “que …. l'argumentation de la Haute Autorité vise nettement une situation inquiétante dans le domaine des prix et qu'il est impossible de voir dans la décision attaquée une mesure dont les buts sont incompatibles avec les buts en vue desquels le pouvoir d'instituer des prix maxima a été conféré à la Haute Autorité”.
page 405 note 1 This is the period during which under section 1, paragraph 5, of the Convention its provisions remain in effect. The period ends in 1958.
page 405 note 2 With regard to coal, this date is 19/2/1953.
page 405 note 3 The English translation published by the H.A. seems not to be completely exact; the French text: “Si la H. A. reconnaît …., elle leur adresse toutes recommendations …. A défaut d'exécution …. la H. A. fixe les prix et conditions de vente ….” imposes an obligation on the H.A., whereas in the translation the H.A. is only “empowered” to address recommendations and “will” fix prices in case of non-compliance.
page 407 note 1 In articles 33 and 35, second paragraph.
page 407 note 2 In French: “Même si un motif non justifié …. s'était joint aux motifs qui, eux, justifient l'action de la H. A., les décisions ne seraient pas de ce fait entachées de détournement de pouvoir, pour autant qu'elles ne portent pas atteinte au but essentiel (qui est l'interdiction des pratiques déloyales de concurrence et des discriminations).”
page 407 note 3 An analogous line of thought has also been applied by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case involving the extent of the powers of the federal government; Oklahoma ex rel. Phillips vs Guy Atkinson C° (313 U.S., 508 (1941)) reported by André Gervais in Revue du Droit Public et de la Science Politique 1946 on page 677/700; see also note 225 ibidem.
page 408 note 1 Published in “Revue du Droit Public et de la Science politique en France et à l'Etranger”, 04–06 1954.Google Scholar
page 408 note 2 “…. elle n'est pas seulement le défenseur des libertés et des droits des individus contre les abus de pouvoir de l'autorité publique, ce qui est le propre de la juridiction administrative. Elle est aussi l'arbitre entre les droits des Etats membres et ceux de la Communauté” (ibidem, p. 434).