ECJ 1. Decision no 22/55, adopted within the context of a special system provided for in relation to Belgium for the duration of the transitional period by article 26 of the convention which applies in accordance with specific rules, however detailed and varied they may be, to all undertakings and transactions governed by that system, is in the nature of a general decision. In this instance, the fact that all the undertakings referred to by the contested decision are grouped within the applicant association does not affect the general nature of that decision. The territorial limitation of the area of application of the contested decision does not imply individual identification; the fact that a general decision has specific consequences does not affect its nature as a general decision. The question whether a decision is individual or general in nature must be decided on the basis of objective criteria; it does not depend upon its form but on its scope.
2. The passage in the letter of the high authority of 28 may 1955, determining unequivocally the attitude which it has decided to take should certain circumstances mentioned in the letter arise, is in the nature of a decision within the meaning of article 14 of the treaty.
3. In spite of an unquestionable link between two applications, a general reference to a statement made in the other case is not sufficient for the application to be in accordance with the provisions of article 22 of the statute of the court of justice and of article 29 of the rules of procedure of the court. The grounds relied upon for the first time in the reply, in the absence of any reference to them in the application, are inadmissible.
4. If the treaty provides that private undertakings are entitled to seek the annulment of a general decision on the ground of misuse of powers affecting them, that is because they have no right of action on any other ground. There is nothing in the treaty from which it may be concluded that private undertakings have been granted such a right to review the ‘constitutionality’ of general decisions, since they are quasi-legislative measures adopted by a public authority with legislative effect ‘erga omnes’. If article 33 accepts the existence of a right to bring an application for the annulment of a general decision on the ground of misuse of powers affecting an undertaking, that is an exception which is explained by the fact that, in this case, it is still the individual factor which prevails. In order for an application for the annulment of a general decision to be admissible it is sufficient for the applicant to claim formally that there has been a misuse of powers affecting it, indicating convincingly the reasons which, in its opinion, give rise to the presumption of a misuse of powers; examination of the justification for the submission of misuse of powers thus relied on is a question of substance.
5. The payment of differing rates of equalization on the basis of physical conditions of production tends to ensure that comparable cases receive comparable benefit and, therefore, to avoid discrimination. Equalization need not necessarily cover the entire difference between the reduced selling prices and receipts at the beginning of the transitional period, since it is only a necessary protective measure to avoid hurried and dangerous shifts in production levels. The convention does not provide for any guarantee that original levels of receipts will be maintained.
6. Amounts of equalization vary necessarily from one case to another, but the mere existence of variations is not proof that the high authority fixed those amounts arbitrarily and in a manner extraneous to the aim of article 26 of the convention.
7. If certain undertakings were not carrying out the work of reorganization and re-equipment, such that they incurred liability, they would thus have deprived themselves by their own fault of the right to benefit from equalization.
8. The reduction or even withdrawal of equalization in only certain individual cases does not result in the types referred to in those exceptional cases being placed outside the price list, since there can be only one price list resulting from the application of article 26 ( 2 ) for all consumers of belgian coal.
Citations:
C-9/55, [1956] EUECJ C-9/55
Links:
European
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131555
