swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
European - From: 1930 To: 1959
This page lists 50 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.
Associazione Industrie Siderurgiche Italiane (Assider) v High Authority Of The European Coal And Steel Community; ECJ 11-Feb-1955 - C-3/54; [1955] EUECJ C-3/54
Industrie Siderurgiche Associate v High Authority Of The European Coal And Steel Community; ECJ 11-Feb-1955 - C-4/54; [1955] EUECJ C-4/54
Netherlands v ECSC High Authority; ECJ 21-Mar-1955 - C-6/54; [1955] EUECJ C-6/54
Assider v ECSC High Authority; ECJ 28-Jun-1955 - C-5/55
Kergall v Common Assembly; ECJ 19-Jul-1955 - C-1/55; [1955] EUECJ C-1/55
Groupement Des Industries Siderurgiques Luxembourgeoises v ECSC High Authority; ECJ 24-Nov-1955 - C-7/54; C-9/54; [1956] EUECJ C-7/54
Association Des Utilisateurs De Charbon Du Grand-Duche De Luxembourg v ECSC High Authority; ECJ 24-Nov-1955 - C-8/54; [1956] EUECJ C-8/54
Association Des Utilisateurs De Charbon Du Grand-Duche De Luxembourg v ECSC High Authority; ECJ 23-Apr-1956 - C-8/54
Federation Charbonniere De Belgium v ECSC High Authority C-8/55; [1956] EUECJ C-8/55
16 Jul 1956
ECJ
European, Utilities
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Societe Des Charbonnages De Beeringen v ECSC High Authority; ECJ 29-Nov-1956 - C-9/55; [1956] EUECJ C-9/55
Federation Charbonniere De Belgium v ECSC High Authority C-8/55
29 Nov 1956
ECJ
European
Mirossevich v ECSC High Authority; ECJ 12-Dec-1956 - C-10/55; [1956] EUECJ C-10/55
Bourgaux v Common Assembly; ECJ 17-Dec-1956 - C-1/56; [1956] EUECJ C-1/56
Geitling Ruhrkohlen-Verkaufsgesellschaft and Others v ECSC High Authority; ECJ 20-Mar-1957 - C-2/56; [1957] ECR 011; [1957] EUECJ C-2/56
Algera and Others v Common Assembly; ECJ 12-Jul-1957 - C-7/56; [1957] EUECJ C-7/56
Firma J Nold KG v High Authority Of The European Coal And Steel Community C-18/57; [1957] EUECJ C-18/57R; [1959] EUECJ C-18/57
4 Dec 1957
ECJ
European
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Acciaierie Laminatoi Magliano Alpi v High Authority Of The European Coal And Steel Community. (Procedure ); ECJ 10-Dec-1957 - C-8/56; [1957] EUECJ C-8/56
Alma v ECSC High Authority C-8/56
10 Dec 1957
ECJ
European
Societe des usines a tubes de la Sarre v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community C-1/57
10 Dec 1957
ECJ
European
Under the fourth paragraph of article 54 of the treaty the delivery of an opinion on investment programmes is subject to certain requirements. Among the conditions laid down by the treaty, some are merely formal requirements; however, the statement of reasons is an essential, indeed constituent, part of the opinion. The absence of a statement of reasons means that the opinion is legally non-existent. (Treaty, articles 5, 15 and fourth paragraph of article 54)
Reference to the general rules previously laid down and a declaration that they apply to the case in question constitutes an adequate statement of reasons for the opinion. (Treaty, articles 5, 15 and fourth paragraph of article 54)
Article 4 of decision no 27/55 of the high authority of 20 july 1955 provides a time - limit only for the submission of investment proposals. The principles of sound administration require the opinion of the high authority to be delivered within a reasonable time, namely, before the expiry of the three months laid down in article 4 of decision no 27/55. A time-limit expressly recognized by a public authority may not be disregarded. (Treaty, third and fourth paragraphs of article 54; decision no 27/55 of the high authority, article 4)
Delivery of an opinion out of time does not affect the nature of the act. (Treaty, fourth paragraph of article 54)
Only acts of the high authority which, regardless of their form, constitute decisions or recommendations within the meaning of article 14 of the treaty may be the subject of an application for annulment. An opinion constitutes a disguised decision when it lays down a rule capable of being applied, namely, when the high authority determines unequivocally the position which it decides to adopt if certain conditions are fulfilled.
An opinion cannot involve the person to whom it is addressed in any legal obligation; it is a measure by means of which the high authority exercises its function of giving guidance and constitutes advice given to undertakings. An opinion does not affect the freedom of decision and the responsibility of undertakings any more than those of the high authority.
Compagnie Des Hauts Fourneaux De Chasse v ECSC High Authority (Rec 1958,P 131) (Nl58-137 D 58-135 I 58-123 En58-199 Dk58-101 Gr58-231 P 58-233) (Judgment) C-2/57; [1958] EUECJ C-2/57
12 Jun 1958
ECJ
European
[ Bailii ]
Compagnie Des Hauts Fourneaux De Chasse v ECSC High Authority (Rec 1958,P 157) (Nl58-165 D 58-161 I 58-149 En58-211 Dk58-103 Gr58-235 P 58-237 Es58-185) (Judgment) C-15/57; [1958] EUECJ C-15/57
12 Jun 1958
ECJ
European
[ Bailii ]
Meroni v ECSC High Authority (Rec 1958,P 11) (Nl58-11 D 58-11 I 58-11 En58-133 Dk58-55 Gr58-174 P 58-175 Es58-123 Sv58-21 Fi58-21) (Judgment) C-9/56; [1958] EUECJ C-9/56
13 Jun 1958
ECJ
European
[ Bailii ]
Meroni v ECSC High Authority (Rec 1958,P 53) (Nl58-55 D 58-53 I 58-51 En58-157 Dk58-97 Gr58-227 P 58-229) (Judgment) C-10/56; [1958] EUECJ C-10/56
13 Jun 1958
ECJ
European
[ Bailii ]
Wirtschaftsvereinigung Eisen- Und Stahlindustrie v ECSC High Authority (Rec 1958,P 263) (Nl58-281 D 58-273 I 58-253 En58-265 Dk58-109 Gr58-275 P 58-265) (Judgment) C-13/57; [1958] EUECJ C-13/57
21 Jun 1958
ECJ
European
[ Bailii ]
Groupement Des Hauts Fourneaux and Acieries Belges v ECSC High Authority (Rec 1958,P 225) (Nl58-241 D 58-233 I 58-215 En58-245 Dk58-105 Gr58-271 P 58-259) (Judgment) C-8/57; [1958] EUECJ C-8/57
21 Jun 1958
ECJ
European
[ Bailii ]
Chambre Syndicale De La Siderurgie Francaise v ECSC High Authority (Rec 1958,P 365) (Nl58-395 D 58-383 I 58-353 En58-319 Dk58-113 Gr58-279 P 58-271) (Judgment) C-9/57; [1958] EUECJ C-9/57
26 Jun 1958
ECJ
European
[ Bailii ]
Aubert and Duval v ECSC High Authority (Rec 1958,P 401) (Nl58-435 D 58-423 I 58-389 En58-339 Dk58-117 Gr58-283 P 58-277) (Judgment) C-10/57; [1958] EUECJ C-10/57
26 Jun 1958
ECJ
European
[ Bailii ]
Electro-Chimie and Others v ECSC High Authority (Rec 1958,P 437) (Nl58-473 D 58-461 I 58-423 En58-357 Dk58-119 Gr58-287 P 58-281) (Judgment) C-11/57; [1958] EUECJ C-11/57
26 Jun 1958
ECJ
European
[ Bailii ]
Syndicat De La Siderurgie Du Centre-Midi v ECSC High Authority (Judgment) C-12/57; [1958] EUECJ C-12/57
26 Jun 1958
ECJ
European
An association of undertakings has capacity to institute proceedings before the court of justice against a general decision if that decision is capable of affecting certain interests, even though perhaps divergent, which have been entrusted to it (treaty, second paragraph of article 33, articles 48 and 80). Proceedings instituted by an association of undertakings are admissible if the association formally alleges that on one or more occasions a misuse of powers affecting its members has been committed, if it produces a relevant statement of the reasons leading it to believe that there has been a misuse of powers on one or more occasions and if the purpose of the arguments upon which it relies is to obtain a declaration that, when the high authority adopted the contested provisions, it exercised the powers conferred upon it by the treaty for purposes other than those for which they were conferred upon it (treaty, second paragraph of article 33). The financial arrangements referred to in article 53 are arrangements based on the transfer of resources, in particular arrangements in the nature of equalization or compensation. They constitute " indirect " intervention procedures, within the meaning of article 57 of the treaty, as distinct from the direct means of action such as the establishment of production quotas (article 58) or the allocation of resources (article 59) (treaty, articles 53 and 57). The express reference made to article 3 in article 53 does not release the high authority from its duty to observe the other articles of the treaty and in particular articles 2, 4 and 5. Articles 2 to 5 must always be observed because they establish the fundamental objectives of the community. Those provisions are equally binding and must be read together if they are to be properly applied (treaty, articles 2, 3, 4, 5 and 53). The provisions of articles 2 to 5 can stand by themselves and accordingly, in so far as they have not been adopted in any other provision of the treaty, they are directly applicable. If they have been adopted or are governed by other provisions of the treaty words relating to the same provision must be considered as a whole and applied together. In practice it will always be necessary to reconcile to a certain degree the various objectives of article 3 since it is clearly impossible to attain them all fully and simultaneously as those objectives constitute general principles which must be observed and harmonized as far as possible (treaty, articles 2, 3, 4 and 53). Protection of the common interest does not rule out, if the circumstances so require, the inclusion in a measure combining the pursuit of the various objectives laid down in article 3 of the treaty of all measures of a selective or gradual nature compatible with the principle of equality and necessary for carrying out the tasks laid down in the said article. Consequently an indirect means of action on production cannot be considered as incompatible with the protection of the common interest on the pretext that it involves different treatment (treaty, first paragraph of article 3). Since the procedures for which provision is made in article 59 and annex ii to the treaty consist exclusively in establishing consumption priorities and allocating resources they are directly and solely of a quantitative nature and are thereby distinct from all indirect action on production by means of prices without restriction of the volume of purchases, like the action effected by a financial arrangement established in accordance with article 53(b) (treaty, articles 53(b) and 59 and annex ii). The provisions of article 54 in no way impede the adoption of measures in accordance with the provisions of articles 3, 5, 53(b), 57 and 59 of the treaty, taken together, the application of which may influence investments planned by undertakings. In particular the financial arrangements referred to in article 53(b), which the high authority is entitled to use as an indirect means of action on production, entail by their nature results capable of affecting the plans of undertakings, such as, for example, their investment plans (treaty, articles 53 (b) and 54). A special charge within the meaning of article 4 (c) does not obtain when the high authority, in making a financial arrangement of the kind provided for in article 53 (b), imposes higher contributions upon certain undertakings than upon others since this unequal allocation of charges is based upon objectively-established criteria which are justified by the objectives which are properly pursued under the said arrangement (treaty, articles 4 (c) and 53 (b)). Although economic circumstances justify measures concerning the financial charge imposed upon undertakings those measures must not be more restrictive than is necessary for the purpose of the financial arrangement (articles 53 (b) and 65 (2) (b)).
[ Bailii ]
Mannesmann v ECSC High Authority (Rec 1960,P 345) (Nl60-353 D 60-351 I 60-335 En60-162) C-2/59; [1959] EUECJ C-2/59R
30 Jan 1959
ECJ
European
[ Bailii ]
De Gezamenlijke Steenkolemijnen In Limburg v ECSC High Authority C-17/57; [1959] EUECJ C-17/57
4 Feb 1959
ECJ
European
Europa Proceedings may be brought under article 35 only inasmuch as the applicant has first raised the matter with the high authority in accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of that article . This initial requirement is necessary not only because the time-limit set for the party concerned commences to run with effect from the request submitted to the high authority but also because of the need for notification which, by impugning the inaction of the high authority, forces it to take a decision within a limited period regarding the legality or otherwise of its inaction (article 35 of the ecsc treaty).
The basis of an action cannot be changed, even by way of an alternative, in the reply.
If, after giving a state the opportunity to submit its comments, pursuant to article 88, the high authority receives undertakings from the state which convince it that the state has not failed to fulfil an obligation under the treaty, it has no alternative but to discontinue the action taken . Article 88 of the treaty confers no power on the high authority to take, in respect of member states, decisions registering approval but only decisions recording failure to fulfil an obligation under the treaty (article 88 of the ECSC treaty).
[ Bailii ]
Stork and Cie v ECSC High Authority (Rec 1959,P 43) (Nl59-45 D 59-45 I 59-43 En59-17 Dk59-127 Gr58-299 P 59-293 Es59-223) (Judgment) C-1/58; [1959] EUECJ C-1/58
4 Feb 1959
ECJ
European
[ Bailii ]
Nold Kg v ECSC High Authority (Rec 1959,P 89) (Nl59-95 D 59-91 I 59-87 En59-41 Dk59-131 Gr59-323 P 59-315) (Judgment) C-18/57
20 Mar 1959
ECJ
European
Geitling Ruhrkohlen-Verkaufsgesellschaft and Others v ECSC High Authority C-19/59; [1959] EUECJ C-19/59R
12 May 1959
ECJ
European
ECJ Order - 1. The suspension of the operation of a decision constituting a refusal of authorization is not equivalent to the grant of the authorization refused. That authorization may be granted only by the administration, over which the court has no power of direction. The 'other . . Interim measures' referred to in the last paragraph of article 39 of the ecsc treaty can only be of a conservatory nature and do not give the court the power to substitute itself for the administration or to take, even provisionally, administrative decisions in place of the executive.
2. There is no justification for granting a suspension of operation where the applicants fail to establish that the measures prescribed by the contested decision would cause them damage which could not be redressed if the decision were annulled at the hearing of the main action.
[ Bailii ]
Italy v ECSC High Authority (Rec 1960,P 717) (Nl60-739 D 60-737 I 60-691 En60-351) (Order) C-21/59; [1959] EUECJ C-21/59R
20 May 1959
ECJ
European
[ Bailii ]
Acciaeria E Tubificio Di Brescia v ECSC High Authority (Rec 1960,P 209) (Nl60-213 D 60-217 I 60-201 En60-98) (Order) C-31/59; [1959] EUECJ C-31/59R; [1960] EUECJ C-31/59
26 Jun 1959
ECJ
European
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]
Societe Metallurgique De Knutange v ECSC High Authority C-15/59; [1960] EUECJ C-15/59
30 Jun 1959
ECJ
European
[ Bailii ]
Simet and Others v ECSC High Authority C-36/58; [1959] EUECJ C-36/58
17 Jul 1959
ECJ
European
[ Bailii ]
S A F E v ECSC High Authority C-42/58; [1959] EUECJ C-42/58
17 Jul 1959
ECJ
European
[ Bailii ]
Snupat v ECSC High Authority (Rec 1959,P 275) (Nl59-297 D 59-289 I 59-271 En59-127 Dk59-141 Gr59-335 P 59-337) (Judgment) C-32/58; [1959] EUECJ C-32/58
17 Jul 1959
ECJ
European
[ Bailii ]
Mannesmann Ag and Others v ECSC High Authority (Rec 1959,P 253) (Nl59-273 D 59-265 I 59-247 En59-117 Dk59-139 Gr59-333 P 59-333) (Judgment) C-23/58; [1959] EUECJ C-23/58
17 Jul 1959
ECJ
European
[ Bailii ]
Bochumer Verein v ECSC High Authority (Rec 1959,P 231) (Nl59-249 D 59-241 I 59-225 En59-107 Dk59-137 Gr59-331 P 59-329) (Judgment) C-22/58; [1959] EUECJ C-22/58
17 Jul 1959
ECJ
European
[ Bailii ]
Felten and Guilleaume Ag v ECSC High Authority C-21/58; [1959] EUECJ C-21/58
17 Jul 1959
ECJ
European
Judgment
[ Bailii ]
Phoenix-Rheinrohr Ag v ECSC High Authority C-20/58; [1959] EUECJ C-20/58
17 Jul 1959
ECJ
European
[ Bailii ]
Von Lachmuller and Others v Commission EEC C-43/59; [1960] EUECJ C-43/59
20 Oct 1959
ECJ
European
(Staff Regulations).
[ Bailii ]
Opinion of the Court of 17 December 1959 C-1/59; [1959] EUECJ C-1/59
17 Dec 1959
ECJ
European
[ Bailii ]
Societe Des Fonderies De Pont-A-Mousson v ECSC High Authority C-14/59; [1959] EUECJ C-14/59
17 Dec 1959
ECJ
European
[ Bailii ]
F E R A M v ECSC High Authority C-23/59; [1959] EUECJ C-23/59
17 Dec 1959
ECJ
European
[ Bailii ]
Procedure For Amendment Pursuant To The Third And Fourth Paragraphs Of Article 95 Of The ECSC Treaty. OP-1/59; [1959] EUECJ OP-1/59
17 Dec 1959
ECJ
European
[ Bailii ]
Macchiorlatti Dalmas E Figli v ECSC High Authority C-1/59
17 Dec 1959
ECJ
European