Category: European

Alfred Willame v Commission of the EAEC (Judgment): ECJ 22 Jun 1967

Europa 1. Officials – integration – establishment board – duties – composition (EAEC staff regulations of officials, article 102) 2. Officials – ability, efficiency and conduct – assessment not influenced by services rendered in the sphere of staff representation (EAEC staff regulations of officials, annex ii, third paragraph of article 1(3)) 1. Even in the event of the reopening of the integration procedure it is unnecessary to modify the composition of the establishment board. On the one hand, the duty of this board is not to take penal or disciplinary measures, but rather to assess the ability, efficiency and conduct of an official in relation to the performance of the duties of a given official post. On the other hand only a single establishment board is able, through prolonged experience, to develop homogeneous criteria of assessment and, if necessary, to balance discriminatory or divergent opinions expressed by superior officers on the officials concerned. Cf. Paragraphs 1 and 2, summary, case 87/63 (1964) ECR 469. 2. The value of the services rendered by an official in the sphere of staff representation must not influence the assessment of the ability, efficiency and conduct of that official in relation to the performance of the duties involved in a given post provided for in the budget. The administration is required only to consider the volume of the work performed for the staff committee by the official concerned and to establish what effect the time spent on work as staff representative has had on the time devoted to the performance of his official duties.

Citations:

C-12/66, [1967] EUECJ C-12/66

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131825

Compagnie des forges de Chatillon, Commentry and Neuves-Maisons v High Authority of the ECSC (Judgment): ECJ 16 Jun 1966

Europa Measures adopted by an institution – decision – constituent elements (ECSC treaty, article 14) cf. Para. 1(a), summary, joined cases 23, 24 and 52/63, (1963) ECR 217. A measure which satisfies the fundamental conditions underlying the concept of a decision within the meaning of the treaty retains the character of a decision even though it fails to comply with some inessential requirement of form laid down by the high authority for the identification of its decisions.

Citations:

C-54/65, [1966] EUECJ C-54/65

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131814

Dekker v Bundesversicherungsanstalt Fur Angestellte: ECJ 1 Dec 1965

ECJ Under the terms of Article 177, the court, when giving a preliminary ruling, only has jurisdiction to give a ruling on the interpretation of the Treaty and of measures of the institutions of the community, but can neither apply the Treaty and such measures to a specific case, nor rule on the interpretation of the national law of a member state.
The expression ‘benefits in kind’ within the meaning of Article 22 of Regulation no 3 refers to benefits in respect of a specific case of sickness or maternity and does not apply to supplementary pension payments intended as a contribution to the financing of the beneficiary’s sickness insurance.

Citations:

C-33/65, [1965] EUECJ R-33/65

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131803

Koninklijke Nederlandsche Hoogovens en Staalfabrieken NV v High Authority of the ECSC: ECJ 14 Jun 1967

Europa The statement of reasons for a decision must contain the essential elements of the high authority’s reasoning in such a way that the court and all persons concerned may check that the legal provisions in question have been correctly applied. Ferrous scrap which has not been acquired for a consideration and which is re-used by the undertaking on whose behalf the production activity which created it was carried out constitutes an undertaking’s own resources. If the defective drafting of a measure for which the defendant is responsible has given rise to an application, this amounts to an exceptional circumstance allowing the court to order that the parties bear their own costs.

Citations:

C-26/66, [1967] EUECJ C-26/66

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131827

Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities: ECJ 8 Feb 1968

Europa 1. Transport – special internal rates and conditions – purpose of such special rates and conditions – authorization justified (ECSC treaty, article 70) 2. Transport – special internal rates and conditions – unforeseeable circumstances justifying authorization of special rates and conditions – modifications in the infrastructure of transport 3. ECSC treaty – general objectives – natural conditions of competition – concept (ECSC treaty, second paragraph of article 2) 4. ECSC treaty – general objectives – continuity of employment – preservation of balance between different general objectives (ECSC treaty, articles 2 and 3) 5. Transport – special interest rates and conditions – application to a group of undertakings – authorization permissible (ECSC treaty, article 70) 6. Transport – special internal rates and conditions – restrictive clause – authorization exceptional nature – temporary authorization – fixing of time-limit (ECSC treaty, article 70). 1. The purpose of the authorization of special rates and conditions is to grant temporary aid to enable undertakings to overcome – in particular by means of a re-adaptation of production and distribution – exceptional difficulties resulting from unforeseeable circumstances which are likely to result in a situation in which the composition of production costs no longer corresponds to the natural conditions of competition existing between them. Cf. Paragraph 2, summary, judgment in joined cases 27, 28 and 29/58, (1960) ecr 505. 2. The unforeseeable nature of the circumstances justifying the grant of special rates and conditions must be assessed in the light of the facts of each case and according to a reasonable assessment of the situation. In the transport sector, modifications in the infrastructure, execution of which brings about a change in the existing economic situation, constitute such unforeseeable circumstances. 3. The concept set out in the second paragraph of article 2 of the treaty concerning conditions which will of themselves ensure the most rational distribution of production cannot be regarded as a fixed concept, but covers facts which are themselves contingent and variable, in particular with regard to time. 4. Although it is true that the establishment of the common market is based in particular on the most rational distribution of production at the highest possible level of productivity, it in no way follows that the social objectives set out in article 2 of the treaty are always of secondary importance and can in no case constitute one of the decisive grounds for community action. As the general objectives set out in articles 2 and 3 of the ECSC treaty cannot always be pursued simultaneously in their totality, the community must continually reconcile any possible conflict which may be implied by these objectives when considered individually, and when such conflict arises must grant such priority to one or other of the general objectives as appears necessary having regard to the economic facts or circumstances in the light of which it adopts its decisions. Cf. Paragraph 4(b), summary, judgment in case 8/57, (1958) ecr 245. 5. The application of special rates and conditions in the interest of one or more undertakings does not necessarily imply individual measures and in no way excludes the introduction of measures adapted to a group of undertakings which are similarly placed. 6. As the application of special rates and conditions constitutes an altogether exceptional procedure, the treaty only allows it to the extent to which it enables the undertakings in whose favour it operates to re-establish, within the appropriate time – limits, conditions which will of themselves ensure the most rational distribution of production at the highest possible level of productivity. In order to ensure observance of the objectives of the treaty, a time-limit must be attached to the temporary agreement given by the high authority to the application of the special rates and conditions. Cf. Paragraph 2, summary, judgment in joined cases 27, 28 and 29/58, (1960) ecr 241.

Citations:

C-28/66, [1968] EUECJ C-28/66

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131828

Schreckenberg v Commission EAEC (Judgment): ECJ 15 Dec 1966

Europa 1. Measures adopted by an institution – definitive nature – criteria 2. Procedure – claim for compensation distinct from an application for annulment – limits of this distinction 1. A measure adopted by an institution without conditions or reservations must be regarded as final in the absence of material factors which clearly and consistently indicate its provisional nature. Cf. Para. 1, summary, case 34/65 (1966) ECR 521. 2. A party may take action by means of a claim for compensation without being obliged to seek the annulment of the illegal measure which causes him damage. He may not, however, by this means attempt to obtain a result similar to that of the annulment of the measure in question, if the application for its annulment is inadmissible.

Citations:

C-59/65, [1966] EUECJ C-59/65

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131817

Alfons Lutticke GmbH v Commission of the EEC (Judgment): ECJ 1 Mar 1966

Europa Member states of the EEC – failure to fulfil an obligation arising under the treaty – application to the commission to initiate the procedure provided for in article 169 of the EEC treaty – refusal of the commission – application for annulment – inadmissibility. An application for the annulment of a measure by which the commission has arrived at a decision on an application to initiate the procedure laid down to deal with the failure of a member state to fulfil an obligation under the EEC treaty is inadmissible, since the initiation of this procedure is part of the administrative stage thereof and no measure taken by the commission during this stage has any binding force.

Citations:

C-48/65, [1966] EUECJ C-48/65

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131808

Manlio Serio v Commission EAEC (Judgment): ECJ 15 Dec 1966

Europa 1. Officials – recruitment – mandatory reconciliation of the concepts of competition and of selection – limits of the administration’s powers of assessment (staff regulations of officials of the EAEC, articles 29 and 30) 2. Officials – recruitment – review by the court – limits (staff regulations of officials of the EAEC, title iii, chapter I) 1. In the recruitment of officials the administration is obliged to reconcile the concepts of competition and selection resulting from the combined provisions of articles 29 and 30 of the staff regulations. Although the administration is entitled in making its selections to ignore the precise order of merit in the competition for reasons which it is incumbent upon the administration to evaluate and justify before the court, nevertheless it may not destroy the very concept of competition by departing substantially from the result of the competition without serious reasons. 2. As the court’s review is limited to examining the ways and means which may have led to the evaluation made by the appointing authority, the court cannot encroach upon the prerogatives of the appointing authority by addressing to it instructions capable of determining its c

Citations:

C-62/65, [1966] EUECJ C-62/65

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131819

Societe anonyme metallurgique Hainaut-Sambre v High Authority of the ECSC (Judgment): ECJ 15 Dec 1965

Europa 1. Common financial arrangements – equalization – contributions – exemption – principles (ECSC treaty, article 53) 2. Common financial arrangements – equalization – ferrous scrap – exemption – own resources – concept (ECSC treaty, article 53) 1 Cf. Paragraph 1, summary in case 3/65 (1965) ECR 1065. The conditions for granting exemption from contributions under an equalization scheme must be interpreted strictly and must be consistent with the aims, the basic principles and requirements for the proper functioning of such a scheme, in particular the principle of the equal liability of all those affected to pay contributions shared in proportion to the amounts respectively consumed, and the requirement that the scheme be applied impartially to all those subject to it. No exemption from equalization contributions can be allowed which would tend to increase substantially differences in production costs, otherwise than by altering the level of output, and thereby bring about an appreciable disequilibrium in the competitive relationships between undertakings. 2. Cf. Paragraph 2, summary in case 3/65 (1965) ECR 1065. Any exemption from equalization contributions which depends not on the way in which an undertaking arranges its production but on the contractual relationships which it has with other undertakings is not compatible with the equalization scheme. Classification of scrap as ‘own resources’ is not necessarily dependent on the concept of ownership of the scrap, but is intended to apply in the main to scrap which is genuinely the product of an undertaking’s own activity

Citations:

C-4/65, [1965] EUECJ C-4/65

Links:

Bailii

European, Utilities

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131779

Brus v Commission EEC: ECJ 16 Jun 1965

ECJ 1. Officials – grading – table of definition of duties – terms not corresponding to clearly distinct concepts – discretion of the administration – exercise of that discretion open to criticism in a particular case – measures which cannot be annulled
(staff regulations of officials of the eec, article 5)
2. Officials – grading – no right to a particular post based on an internal proposal for the improvement of the service

Citations:

[1965] EUECJ C-48/64, C-48/64

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131768

Acciaierie E Ferriere Pugliese v ECSC High Authority: ECJ 8 Feb 1966

Europa Basis of assessment – estimated assessment – statement of reasons – when an estimated assessment is made, which, by briefly setting forth the essential factor on which it is based, is sufficient in law, the administration is not bound to explain such assessment in detail or reproduce the accounting documents and technical analyses on which it is based. When an undertaking supplies explanations which are not irrelevant, the high authority, as defendant, may not restrict itself to a mere assertion that these explanations are not entirely conclusive and abstain from stating the reasons for its decision.

Citations:

C-8/65, [1966] EUECJ C-8/65

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131781

Acciaierie San Michele SpA (in liquidation) v High Authority of the ECSC (Judgment): ECJ 2 Mar 1967

ECJ 1. Liability of the ECSC – financial arrangements – equalization – normal disadvantages – absence of harm 2. Common financial arrangements – equalization of ferrous scrap – calculation of contributions – estimated assessment – conditions (ECSC treaty, article 53) 1. Cf. Para. 1, summary, joined cases 14, 16, 17, 20, 24, 26 and 27/60 and 1/61 (1961) ECR 161. The disadvantages which are bound to be inherent in the system of equalization are normal and do not amount to an injury giving rise to a claim for reparation. Uncertainty as to the rate of equalization, even if the amount applicable for a single period has been increased by a considerable amount, is regarded as such a disadvantage provided that experienced producers have been able to take these increases into account in their estimates. */ 661j0014 /*. 2. In order to be entitled to make an estimated assessment, the high authority must prove that the undertaking in question has failed either to produce the information necessary for calculating its contributions or to supply proof in support of it.

Citations:

C-58/65, [1967] EUECJ C-58/65, C-9/65

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Acciaierie San Michele Spa (In Liquidation) v High Authority Of The ECSC ECJ 22-Feb-1968
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131782

Societa Industriale Metallurgica di Napoli (SIMET) and Acciaierie e Ferriere di Roma (FERAM) v High Authority of the ECSC: ECJ 2 Mar 1967

Europa Procedure – time-limit for instituting proceedings – expiry – unforeseeable circumstances (protocol on the statute of the court of justice of the ECSC, third paragraph of article 39)
Procedure – application – measures forming a single whole – subject-matter of action
Procedure – objection of illegality – general decision – direct legal relationship – measures forming a whole – admissibility (ECSC treaty, article 36)
Common financial arrangements – equalization of ferrous scrap – calculation of contributions – estimated assessment – conditions (ECSC treaty, article 53)

Citations:

C-25/65, [1967] EUECJ C-25/65

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131795

Grundig v Commission EEC: ECJ 16 Jun 1965

ECJ 1. Where a measure adopted by an institution is directed to addressees designated by name, only the text which is notified to them is authentic.
2. During administrative proceedings before the commission concerning the application of article 85 of the eec treaty the parties concerned must be informed of the facts upon which the complaints of the commission are based. It is not however necessary that the entire content of the file should be communicated to them.
3. Neither the wording of article 85 nor that of article 86 gives any ground for holding that distinct areas of application are to be assigned to each of the two articles according to the level in the economy at which the undertakings operate.
4. Competition may be distorted within the meaning of article 85(1) of the eec treaty not only by agreements which limit it as between the parties but also by agreements which prevent or restrict the competition which might take place between one of them and third parties. For this purpose it is irrelevant whether the parties to the agreement are or are not on a footing of equality as regards their position and function in the economy.
5. A sole distributorship contract may, without involving an abuse of a dominant position, affect trade between the member states and at the same time have as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition, thus falling under the prohibition of article 85(1) of the eec treaty.
6. The concept of ‘ agreements…Which may affect trade between member states ‘ is intended to define, in the law governing cartels, the boundary between the areas respectively covered by community law and national law. In this connexion what is particularly important is whether the agreement is capable of constituting a threat, either direct or indirect, actual or potential, to freedom of trade between member states in a manner which might harm the attainment of the objectives of a single market between states. Thus the fact that an agreement encourages an increase, even a large one, in the volume of trade between states is not sufficient to exclude the possibility that the agreement may ‘ affect ‘ such trade within the meaning of article 85 of the eec treaty.
7. For the purpose of the application of article 85(1) there is no need to take account of the concrete effects of an agreement when it has as its object the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition.
8. Sole distributorship contracts made between producer and independent concessionnaire do not necessarily, as such, fall under the prohibition of article 85(1). Nevertheless an agreement between producer and distributor which might tend to restore the national divisions in trade between member states might be such as to frustrate the most fundamental objectives of the community.
9. The finding of an infringement of article 85(1) must be limited only to those parts of a contract which constitute the infringement as long as they are severable from the rest of the agreement.
10. Articles 36, 222 and 234 of the eec treaty do not exclude any influence whatever of community law on the exercise of national industrial property rights.
The community rules on competition do not allow the improper use of rights under national trade – mark law in order to frustrate the community’s law on cartels.
11. When a sole distributorship contract is challenged before it, the commission is not obliged automatically to require other concessionnaires who are not parties to that agreement to take part in the proceedings.
12. The commission may not confine itself to requiring from undertakings proof of the fulfilment of the requirements for the grant of the exemption from the prohibition in article 85(3) of the eec treaty, but must play its part, using the means available to it, in ascertaining the relevant facts and circumstances.
Judicial review of complex economic evaluations by the commission concerning exemption from the prohibition on cartels must take account of their nature by confining itself to an examination of the relevance of the facts and the legal consequences which the commission deduces therefrom. This review must in the first place be carried out in respect of the reasons given for the decisions which must set out the facts and considerations on which the said evaluations are based.
13. The improvement in the production and distribution of goods, which is required for the grant of exemption cannot be identified with all the advantages which the parties to the agreement obtain from it in their production or distribution activities, since the content of the concept of improvement is not required to depend upon the special features of the contractual relationships in question. This improvement must in particular show appreciable objective advantages of such a character as to compensate for the disadvantages which they cause in the field of competition.
In its evaluation of the relative importance of the various factors submitted for its consideration, the commission must judge their effectiveness by reference to an objectively ascertainable improvement in the production and distribution of the goods and decide whether the resulting benefit suffices to support the conclusion that the consequent restrictions upon competition are indispensable.

Citations:

[1966] ECR 429, C-58/64, [1966] EUECJ C-58/64

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131775

Richard Muller v Council of the EEC and Council of the EAEC: ECJ 22 Jun 1967

Europa Procedure – revision of a judgment – fact causing the revision to be opened – admissibility (protocol on the statute of the court of justice of the EEC, article 41; protocol on the statute of the court of justice of the EAEC, article 42) in order to decide whether the fact relied upon by the applicant is of such a nature as to cause the revision to be opened within the meaning of article 41 of the EEC statute and article 42 of the EAEC statute, it is necessary to consider its relevance to the grounds of the judgment relating to the question at issue.

Citations:

C-28/64, [1967] EUECJ C-28/64

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131752

Jean Moreau v Commission EAEC (Rec 1966,P 663) (Nl66-664 D 66-686 I 66-624 En66-459 Dk66-319 Gr66-467 P 66-519) (Judgment): ECJ 15 Dec 1966

Europa 1. Officials – integration under the state regulations – aims of the relevant provisions (staff regulations of officials of the EAEC, article 102) 2. Officials – contractual servants – application of the staff regulations to such persons – revaluation of post – automatic transfer of the step in the new grade – not permissible – application by analogy of the provisions of the staff regulations relating to the promotion of officials (staff regulations of officials of the EAEC, article 102) 1. The object of article 102 of the staff regulations is to ensure that contractual servants, who are integrated in accordance with the said regulations, keep the position which they previously occupied, by the almost automatic transference to the table set out in article 66 of the staff regulations of the grade and step ‘ expressly or impliedly ‘ accorded them before the staff regulations were applied to them. 2. If the post of a contractual servant engaged during the period before the staff regulations entered into force has been revalued by the regulations, the step in the previous grade of that servant, when he is integrated, cannot automatically be transferred to his new grade. In order to determine the step in the new grade the administration must be guided by the provisions of the staff regulations relating to the promotion of officials.

Citations:

C-15/64, [1966] EUECJ C-15/64

Links:

Bailii

European, Administrative

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131742

Fonzi v Commission EAEC(Judgment): ECJ 8 Jul 1965

Europa 1. Officials – disputes with the administration – appeal through official channels made within the time-limit for appeal to the court – time-limit for appeal to the court retained – rejection of appeal through official channels – notification to applicant – date of notification constituting the date from which time runs in respect of the date from which time runs in respect of time-limit for lodging an appeal to the court (staff regulations of officials of the EAEC, articles 90, 91) 2. Officials – vocational competence – assessment by the administration – jurisdiction of the court – limits (staff regulations of officials of the EAEC, article 91) 3. Officials – promotion – list of those proposed for promotion – exclusion – no requirement to give reasons (staff regulations of officials of the EAEC, articles 25, 45) 4. Officials – disciplinary system – hearing of the person concerned through the intermediary of a senior official – permissibility (staff regulations of officials of the EAEC, article 87) 1. It appears from articles 90 and 91 of the staff regulations, read together, that appeals through official channels are subject to the same time-limit as applies to appeals to the court of justice, provided that they were themselves instituted within the time laid down for appeals to the court. In the case of a rejection of an appeal through official channels, the date on which the applicant becomes aware of this rejection constitutes the termination of the administrative procedure and marks the date from which time begins to run in respect of the time-limit for lodging an appeal to the court. 2. The court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own value judgment for the assessments of the local vocational competence of an official by the administration (cf. Para. 3, summary, joined cases 35/62 and 16/63, (1963) ECR 403). 3. Article 45 of the EAEC staff regulations does not require decisions regarding promotion to be reasoned in respect of candidates not promoted. A fortiori, there is no obligation to give reasons for proposals from an internal administrative body having only consultative powers. (Cf. Para. 3, summary, case 27/63, (1964) ECR 251). 4. In disciplinary matters the hearing of the person concerned may be entrusted to a senior official.

Citations:

C-27/64, [1965] EUECJ C-27/64

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131750

Krawczynski v Commission of the EAEC (Judgment): ECJ 8 Jul 1965

Europa Procedure – conclusions in the application – amendment in the course of proceedings – prohibited in principle – permissibility in certain circumstances (rules of procedure, article 42(2)) 2. Officials – disputes with the administration – classification as the subject of an appeal – disputes of a financial character within the meaning of article 91(1) of the staff regulations of officials of the EEC – EAEC – admissibility.

Citations:

C-83/63, [1965] EUECJ C-83/63

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131710

Chambre Syndicale De La Siderurgie Francaise and Others v ECSC High Authority (Judgment): ECJ 8 Jul 1965

Europa 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.

Citations:

C-4/64, C-3/64, [1965] EUECJ C-4/64

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131733

Wollast nee Schmitz v EEC: ECJ 19 Mar 1964

ECJ Judgment – 1. An appeal to the court under article 91 of the staff regulations of officials of the EEC and EAEC must be brought against the institution to whom the person concerned is responsible. That institution is authorized to appear on behalf of the community.
2. As the procedure prescribed by article 90 of the staff regulations of officials of the eec and eaec and article 73 of the conditions of employment of other servants is a preliminary to an appeal to the court, it may be used in all cases in which the dispute is concerned specifically with the legality of the expulsion of a servant from the ranks of the staff.
3. The concept of a permanent post only covers the posts expressly prescribed as ‘permanent’, or described in a similar manner, in the budget of the community.

Citations:

C-18/63, [1964] EUECJ C-18/63

Links:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131680

Acciaiere Ferriere E Fonderie Di Modena v ECSC High Authority: ECJ 12 Jul 1962

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:

Bailii

European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131646