JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
7 JUNE 19661
Société Anonyme des Laminoirs, Hauts Fourneaux, Forges,
Fonderies et Usines de la Providence and Others
v High Authority of the ECSC
Joined Cases 29, 31, 36, 39—47, 50 and 51/63
In Joined Cases
(1) 29/63, SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME DES LAMINOIRS, HAUTE FOURNEAUX, FORGES, FON­
DERIES ET USINES DE LA PROVIDENCE, having its registered office at Marchienneau-Pont, Belgium, represented by Max Nokin, Chairman of its Board of
Directors;
(2) 31/63, SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME DE LA FABRIQUE DE FER DE MAUBEUGE, having its
registered office at Louvroil (Nord), represented by J. A. de Beco, its Chair­
man and General Manager;
(3) 36/63, HAUTS FOURNEAUX ET FORGES DE SAULNES ET GORCY (FORMERLY RATY
ET CIE), a company limited by shares, having its registered office in Paris 16,
represented by Roland Labbé, its Chairman and Managing Director;
(4) 39/63, ACIÉRIES ET FORGES DE FIRMINY, a company limited by shares, having
its registered office in Paris 9, represented by its liquidator, Marcel Macaux;
(5) 40/63, SOCIÉTÉ DES ACIÉRIES DE POMPEY, a company limited by shares, having
its registered office in Pompey, Meurthe-et-Moselle, represented by R. de
Gunzbourg, its Chairman and Managing Director;
(6) 41/63, SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME DE L'ACIÉRIE ET DES LAMINOIRS DE BEAUTOR, having
its registered office at Beautor (Aisne), represented by Georges Bureau, its
Chairman and Managing Director;
(7) 42/63, SOCIÉTÉ DES HAUTS FOURNEAUX DE ROUEN, a company limited by
shares, having its registered office in Paris 9, represented by Pierre Celier, its
Chairman and Managing Director;
(8) 43/63, SOCIÉTÉ DES USINES SAINT-JACQUES, a company limited by shares,
having its registered office in Paris 9, represented by Andre" Guillanton, its
Chairman and Managing Director;
1 — Language of the Case: French.
139
JUDGMENT OF 7. 6. 1966 —JOINED CASES 29, 31, 36, 39 — 47, 50 AND 51/63
(9) 44/63, COMPAGNIE DES FORGES DE CHÂTILLON, COMMENTRY ET NEUVES-MAI­
SONS, a company limited by shares, having its registered office in Paris 9,
represented by Leon Bureau, its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director;
(10) 45/63, SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME H. K. PORTER-FRANCE, having its registered office i
Paris 8, represented by Jean Pillard, its General Works Manager, and Josep
Versavel, General Secretary;
(11) 46/63, UNION DES CONSOMMATEURS DE PRODUITS Métallurgiques ET INDUS­
TRIELS, a company limited by shares, having its registered office in Paris 8,
represented by Marcel Petiet, its Chairman and General Manager;
(12) 47/63, SOCIÉTÉ FIVES-LILLE-CAIL, a company limited by shares, having its
registered office in Paris 8, represented by Jacques Thibault, its Chairman and
General Manager;
(13) 50/63, UNION SIDÉRURGIQUE DU NORD DE LA FRANCE 'USINOR', a company
limited by shares, having its registered office in Paris 9, represented by
Maurice Borgeaud, its Managing Director;
(14) 51/63, SOCIÉTÉ D'EXPLOITATION DES FORGES D'HENNEBONT, a company lim­
ited by shares, having its registered office in Paris 8, represented by Félix
Portal, its Chairman and Managing Director;
assisted by Jean-Pierre Aron, Advocate of the Cour d'Appel, Paris, all with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of the Chambre Syndicate de la
Sidérurgie Française, 49 boulevard Joseph-II,
applicants,
v
HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY, represented by
its Legal Adviser, Dr Italo Telchini, acting as Agent, and by André de Laubadère,
Professor in the Faculty of Law of Paris, acting as co-Agent, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at its offices, 2 place de Metz,
defendant,
Application for reparation, on the basis of Article 40 of the Treaty establishing the
European Coal and Steel Community, to make good the injury caused by the
wrongful act or omission on the part of the Community in operating the scheme
for the equalization of imported ferrous scrap and scrap treated as such,
140
USINES DE LA PROVIDENCE v HIGH AUTHORITY
THE COURT
composed of: Ch. L. Hammes, President, L. Delvaux (Rapporteur), President of
Chamber, A. M. Donner, A. Trabucchi and R. Lecourt, Judges,
Advocate-General: M. Lagrange (until 7 October 1964) and
K. Roemer (from 8 October 1964)
Registrar: A. Van Houtte
gives the following
JUDGMENT
Issues of fact and of law
On 9 December 1965 the Court delivered a
judgment wherein it decided all the issues in
dispute save the figures concerning any
damage which may have been suffered by
each of the applicants and left it to the
parties to agree damages between them.
The parties have notified the Court within
the time prescribed of the damages which
they have agreed. The calculations sub­
mitted show that five of the applicant under­
takings have suffered damage assessed as
follows:
47/63 Fives-Lille-Cail
50/63 Usinor
FF 3 017.12
FF 39 436.00
On the other hand it follows from the same
calculations that the use of shipyard scrap
even without the benefit of the transport
parity grant was less expensive than the use
of imported ferrous scrap in the cases of the
applicants Maubeuge (31/63), Firminy
(39/63), Pompey (40/63), Beautor (41/63),
Rouen (42/63), Châtillon-Commentry (44/­
63), Porter-France (45/63), Union des con­
sommateurs (46/63) and Hennebont (51/63).
29/63 Providence
36/63 Saulnes
43/63 Saint-Jacques
FF
FF
FF
4 008.91
5 358.25
3 956.42
Mr Advocate-General
Roemer delivered
his opinion at the hearing on 18 May 1966.
Grounds of judgment
A — Substance
The parties have calculated the damage suffered by the five undertakings Provi­
dence, Saulnes, Saint-Jacques, Fives-Lille-Cail and Usinor on the basis of the
principles laid down by the Court in its judgment of 9 December 1965. The High
Authority must therefore be ordered to pay to the said five undertakings, by way
of pecuniary reparation for its wrongful act or omission, the sums of damages
calculated above. On the other hand, since the nine undertakings Maubeuge;
Firminy, Pompey, Beautor, Rouen, Châtillon-Commentry, Porter-France, Union
des consommateurs and Hennebont have not suffered any damage their applica­
tions must fail.
141
JUDGMENT OF 7. 6. 1966 —JOINED CASES 29, 31, 36, 39 — 47, 50 AND 51/63
B — Costs
Under Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure the unsuccessful party shall be
ordered to pay the costs. In Cases 31/63 (Maubeuge), 39/63 (Firminy), 40/63
(Pompey), 41/63 (Beautor), 42/63 (Rouen), 44/63 (Châtillon-Commentry), 45/63
(Porter-France), 46/63 (Union des consommateurs) and 51/63 (Hennebont), the
applicant parties have failed in their submissions and must be ordered to pay the
costs. On the other hand, in Cases 29/63 (Providence), 36/63 (Saulnes), 43/63
(Saint-Jacques), 47-63 (Fives-Lille-Cail) and 50/63 (Usinor), the defendant has
essentially failed in its submissions and must be ordered to pay the whole of the
costs relating to these Cases.
The judgment must provide for each of the parties in question to bear a fixed
proportion of the costs thereof. Further, it is necessary to stipulate finally the
proportion of the costs falling on those undertakings which discontinued their
applications and were accordingly, by orders dated 5 November 1963 and 24
September 1965, ordered to bear the costs attributable to their respective cases
incurred up to the date of the said orders. Since the eight undertakings referred to
in the order of 5 November 1963 discontinued their applications before the Court
decided to call for an expert's report it is necessary to divide the costs into two
parts, the first comprising all the costs of the proceedings save those of the expert's
report and the second comprising the costs occasioned by the report.
1. Costs other than those occasioned by the expert's report
It appears to be fair that the eight undertakings referred to in the order of 5
November 1963 should each bear one third of the costs which are to be borne by
each of the applicants whose applications are dismissed by this judgment and chat
the undertaking Creusot, referred to in the order of 24 September 1965, should
bear the remaining two thirds of such costs. Accordingly the costs, save those
occasioned by the expert's report, shall be borne as follows:
(a) by each of the applicants Maubeuge, Firminy, Pompey, Beautor, Rouen, Châ­
tillon-Commentry, Porter-France, Union des consommateurs and Hennebont
to the extent of three fifty-second parts each;
(b) by the defendant to the extent of fifteen fifty-second parts;
(c) by each of the undertakings referred to in the order of 5 November 1963 to the
extent of one fifty-second part;
(d) by the undertaking Creusot, referred to in the order of 24 September 1965, to
the extent of two fifty-second parts.
142
USINES DE LA PROVIDENCE v HIGH AUTHORITY
2. Costs occasioned by the expert's report
As regards the expert's fees and expenses in connexion with his report, account
must be taken of the fact that the undertaking Creusot discontinued its action only
after the expert's report had been lodged. The costs occasioned by the expert's
report must therefore be borne as follows:
(a) by each of the applicants Maubeuge, Firminy, Pompey, Beautor, Rouen,
Châtillon-Commentry, Porter-France, Union des consommateurs and Henne­
bout to the extent of one fifteenth;
(b) by the defendant to the extent of five fifteenths;
(c) by the undertaking Creusot, referred to in the order of 24 September 1965, to
the extent of one fifteenth.
On those grounds,
Having regard to the judgment of the Court of 9 December 1965,1
Upon reading the pleadings;
Upon hearing the parties on 18 May 1966;
Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General;
Having regard to Articles 40 and 53 of the Treaty establishing the ECSC;
Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the ECSC;
Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European
Communities, especially Article 69 (2);
THE COURT
hereby:
1. Orders the defendant to pay by way of pecuniary reparation for its wrongful
act or omission:
(a) to the Société Anonyme des Laminoirs, Hauts Fourneaux, Forges,
Fonderies et Usines de la Providence, the sum of four thousand and eight
French francs and ninety-one centimes (FF 4 008.91);
(b) to Hauts Fourneaux et Forges de Saulnes et Gorcy the sum of five
thousand three hundred and fifty-eight French francs and twenty-five
centimes (FF 5 358.25);
(c) to the Société des Usines Saint-Jacques the sum of three thousand nine
hundred and fifty-six French francs and two centimes (FF 3 956.02);
1 — Rec. 1965, p. 1123.
143
JUDGMENT OF 7. 6. 1966 —JOINED CASES 29, 31, 36, 39 — 47, 50 AND 51/63
(d) to the Société Fives-Lille-Cail the sum of three thousand and seventeen
French francs and twelve centimes (FF 3 017.12);
(e) to the Union Sidérurgique du Nord de la France ('Usinor') the sum of
thirty-nine thousand four hundred and thirty-six French francs (FF
39 436);
2. Dismisses as unfounded Applications 31/63, 39/63, 40/63, 41/63, 42/63,
44/63, 45/63, 46/63 and 51/63;
3. Orders the defendant High Authority to bear five-fifteenths of the costs
occasioned by the expert's report and fifteen fifty-second parts of the remain­
ning costs of the proceedings;
4. Orders the Société Anonyme de la Fabrique de Fer de Maubeuge, Aciéries
et Forges de Firminy, the Société des Aciéries de Pompey, the Société
Anonyme de l'Aciérie et des Laminoirs de Beautor, the Société des Hauts
Fourneaux de Rouen, the Société Anonyme H. K. Porter-France, the Union
des Consommateurs de Produits Métallurgiques et Industriels and the Société
d'Exploitation des Forges d'Hennebont each to bear one-fifteenth of the costs
occasioned by the expert's report and three fifty-second parts of the remaining
costs of the proceedings;
5. Orders the eight undertakings against which costs were awarded by the
Court's order of 5 November 1963 each to bear one-fifty-second part of the
costs of the proceedings save those occasioned by the expert's report;
6. Orders the undertaking against which costs were awarded by the Court's
order of 24 September 1965 to bear one-fifteenth of the costs occasioned by
the expert's report and two fifty-second parts of the remaining costs of the
proceedings.
Delvaux
Hammes
Donner
Trabucchi
Lecourt
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 7 June 1966.
A Van Houtte
Registrar
144
Ch. L. Hammes
President