In an appeal against a pecuniary sanction or a periodic penalty payment a legal argument cannot be dismissed for the sole reason that it was not presented at the time of the administrative proceedings. To exclude an argument on this basis which is in any event incompatible with the purely preliminary nature of the procedure laid down by article 36 of the treaty, would unduly restrict the applicant’s rights of defence.
The right to an alignment within the meaning of article 60(2)(b) of the ecsc treaty constitutes an exception to the principle of list prices, but it must not divest that principle of all effect through the exclusion of publicity by means of alignments carried out a posteriori. An alignment which, even though calculated correctly, is made solely in order to justify a posteriori an abatement of list prices, contravenes the general scheme of the treaty and article 60 (2) (b) in particular.
A defence of legitimate self-protection capable of justifying an infringement of the treaty presupposes an action taken by a person which is essential in order to ward off a danger threatening him. The threat must be immediate, the danger imminent, and there must be no other lawful means of avoiding it.
The concept of comparability within the meaning of the ecsc treaty is objective in nature and does not permit purely subjective factors to be taken into consideration. The prohibition of discrimination would otherwise lose its effect.
An undertaking cannot escape from the strict obligation to comply with the rules of the treaty on the grounds that other undertakings employ similar illegal devices or that it is in a difficult situation when for the time being there is an unfavourable economic state of affairs. The high authority is justified in refusing to find that these are mitigating circumstances.
Citations:
C-16/61, [1962] EUECJ C-16/61
Links:
European
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131646
