Odbor kompatibility s právem ES
Úřad vlády ČR
I S A P
Informační Systém pro Aproximaci Práva
Databáze č. 17 : Databáze judikatury
ă Odbor kompatibility s právem ES, Úřad vlády ČR - určeno pouze pro potřebu ministerstev a ostatních ústředních orgánů

Číslo (Kód CELEX):
Number (CELEX Code):		61978J0154
Název:
Title: 		JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 18 MARCH 1980. S.P.A. FERRIERA VALSABBIA AND OTHERS V COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT BARS. JOINED CASES 154, 205, 206, 226 TO 228, 263 AND 264-78, 39, 31, 83 AND 85-79.
Publikace:
Publication:		REPORTS OF CASES 1980 PAGES 0907
Předmět (klíčová slova):
Keywords		STEEL INDUSTRY;PRODUCTION QUOTAS - ECSC;PRICES - ECSC;
Související předpisy:
Corresponding acts:		377R0962
Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty:
Corresponding Judgements:
Plný text:
Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:


Názor soudu a komentář:


Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):
1. ARGUMENTS INTENDED TO SHOW THAT A PLEA OF ILLEGALITY RAISED PURSUANT TO THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 36 OF THE ECSC TREATY IS INADMISSIBLE, EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT ACCOMPANIED BY FORMAL CONCLUSIONS, MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT OF ITS OWN MOTION WHERE THEY CONCERN THE COURT' S JURISDICTION.

2. THE EXPRESSION'' UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS AS IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 33'', APPEARING IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 36 OF THE ECSC TREATY, MEANS THAT THE APPLICANTS MAY PLEAD THE ILLEGALITY OF THE GENERAL DECISIONS WHICH THEY ARE ALLEGED NOT TO HAVE OBSERVED ONLY IN THE CASES PERMITTED UNDER THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH, THAT THEY MUST PROVE THAT THEY HAVE AN INTEREST IN TAKING ACTION AND THAT THE COURT, IN EXAMINING THE PLEA OF ILLEGALITY, MAY NOT ASSESS THE SITUATION RESULTING FROM ECONOMIC FACTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE LIGHT OF WHICH THE DECISIONS WERE TAKEN, SAVE WITHIN THE LIMITS FIXED BY THE SECOND SENTENCE OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE

33.

3. ARTICLES 5 AND 15 OF THE ECSC TREATY OBLIGE THE COMMISSION TO MENTION IN THE REASONS ON WHICH ITS GENERAL DECISIONS ARE BASED THE SITUATION AS A WHOLE WHICH LED TO THEIR ADOPTION AND THE GENERAL OBJECTIVES WHICH THEY SEEK TO ATTAIN. THEREFORE, THE COMMISSION CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO SPECIFY THE NUMEROUS, COMPLEX FACTS IN THE LIGHT OF WHICH THE DECISION WAS ADOPTED, AND A FORTIORI IT CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A MORE OR LESS COMPLETE APPRAISAL THEREOF OR TO REFUTE THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED BY THE CONSULTATIVE BODIES.

4. THE COMMISSION IS INDEED UNDER AN OBLIGATION BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE ECSC TREATY TO ACT IN THE COMMON INTEREST, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT MUST ACT IN THE INTEREST OF ALL THOSE INVOLVED WITHOUT EXCEPTION, FOR ITS FUNCTION DOES NOT ENTAIL AN OBLIGATION TO ACT ONLY ON CONDITION THAT NO INTEREST IS AFFECTED. ON THE OTHER HAND, WHEN TAKING ACTION IT MUST WEIGH UP THE VARIOUS INTERESTS, AVOIDING HARMFUL CONSEQUENCES WHERE THE DECISION TO BE TAKEN REASONABLY SO PERMITS. THE COMMISSION MAY, IN THE GENERAL INTEREST, EXERCISE ITS DECISION-MAKING POWER ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SITUATION, EVEN TO THE DETRIMENT OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS.

5. IT MAY NOT BE INFERRED FROM ARTICLE 3 OF THE ECSC TREATY THAT THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS ARE BOUND, IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, TO PURSUE ALL THE OBJECTIVES SET OUT IN THAT PROVISION SIMULTANEOUSLY. IT IS NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT THAT THEY SHOULD PERMANENTLY RECONCILE ANY CONFLICT WHICH MAY BE IMPLIED BY THOSE OBJECTIVES WHEN CONSIDERED INDIVIDUALLY, AND WHEN SUCH CONFLICT ARISES MUST GRANT SUCH PRIORITY TO ONE OR OTHER OF THOSE OBJECTIVES AS APPEARS NECESSARY HAVING REGARD TO THE ECONOMIC FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE LIGHT OF WHICH THEY ADOPTED THE MEASURES IN QUESTION. IF THE NEED FOR A COMPROMISE BETWEEN THE VARIOUS OBJECTIVES IS IMPERATIVE IN A NORMAL MARKET SITUATION, IT MUST BE ACCEPTED A FORTIORI IN A STATE OF CRISIS JUSTIFYING THE ADOPTION OF EXCEPTIONAL MEASURES WHICH DEROGATE FROM THE NORMAL RULES GOVERNING THE WORKING OF THE COMMON MARKET AND WHICH CLEARLY ENTAIL NON-COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN OBJECTIVES LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 3 OF THE TREATY.

6. THE ANTI-CRISIS POLICY IN THE IRON AND STEEL SECTOR IS BASED ON THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF SOLIDARITY BETWEEN DIFFERENT UNDERTAKINGS, PROCLAIMED IN THE PREAMBLE TO THE ECSC TREATY AND GIVEN PRACTICAL EXPRESSION IN NUMEROUS ARTICLES SUCH AS, INTER ALIA, ARTICLE 3 (PRIORITY ACCORDED TO THE COMMON INTEREST, WHICH PRESUPPOSES A DUTY OF SOLIDARITY), ARTICLE 49 ET SEQ. (A SYSTEM OF FINANCING THE COMMUNITY BASED ON LEVIES), ARTICLE 55 (2) (GENERAL AVAILABILITY OF THE RESULTS OF RESEARCH IN THE TECHNICAL AND SOCIAL FIELDS), ARTICLE 56 (RE-CONVERSION AND READAPTATION AIDS) AND ARTICLE 53 (THE MAKING OF FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS).

7. THE COMMISSION MAY BE REQUIRED TO INTRODUCE A SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION QUOTAS, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 58 OF THE ECSC TREATY, ONLY IF IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE CRISIS CANNOT BE REMEDIED BY MEANS OF, INTER ALIA, INTERVENTION IN REGARD TO PRICES.

8. THE METHOD TO BE USED TO FIX THE LEVEL OF PRICES LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 61 OF THE ECSC TREATY IS A DISCRETIONARY AND TECHNICAL MATTER GOVERNED BY THE PRINCIPLE OF SOLIDARITY, ADHERENCE TO THE CRITERIA LAID DOWN BY THE PENULTIMATE PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 61 AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE FORMAL REQUIREMENTS CONSISTING IN CONSULTATIONS WITH THE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE AND THE COUNCIL. ONLY WHEN THE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT DISCLOSES A MANIFEST INFRINGEMENT OF A LEGAL RULE, SUCH AS THE FIXING OF PRICES AT SUCH A LEVEL AS MANIFESTLY TO IMPEDE THE PURSUIT OF THE OBJECTIVES LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 3 OF THE TREATY, MAY THE COURT REVIEW THE CHOICES MADE BY THE COMMISSION.

9. THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 61 OF THE ECSC TREATY - REFERRING SOLELY TO ARTICLE 3 OF THAT TREATY - MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT COMPLIANCE WITH THE OBJECTIVES AND PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THAT ARTICLE OF ITSELF ENSURES THE LEGALITY OF A DECISION IMPOSING MINIMUM PRICES.

10. THE GUARANTEE AFFORDED TO THE OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO PROTECT COMMERCIAL INTERESTS, THE UNCERTAINTIES OF WHICH ARE PART OF THE VERY ESSENCE OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY.

11. IN EXERCISING THEIR POWERS, THE INSTITUTIONS MUST ENSURE THAT THE AMOUNTS WHICH COMMERCIAL OPERATORS ARE CHARGED ARE NO GREATER THAN IS REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THE AIM WHICH THE AUTHORITIES ARE TO ACCOMPLISH; HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW THAT THAT OBLIGATION MUST BE MEASURED IN RELATION TO THE INDIVIDUAL SITUATION OF ANY ONE PARTICULAR GROUP OF OPERATORS.

12. THE CONCEPT OF LEGITIMATE SELF-PROTECTION, WHICH IMPLIES AN ACT OF DEFENCE AGAINST AN UNJUSTIFIED ATTACK, CANNOT EXEMPT FROM LIABILITY COMMERCIAL OPERATORS WHO KNOWINGLY CONTRAVENE A GENERAL DECISION THE LEGALITY OF WHICH DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO DOUBTS EITHER TAKEN BY ITSELF OR IN RELATION TO THE ECONOMIC FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE LIGHT OF WHICH THE DECISION WAS ADOPTED. LEGITIMATE SELF-PROTECTION MAY NOT BE PLEADED AGAINST A PUBLIC AUTHORITY ACTING LAWFULLY WITHIN THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF ITS POWERS.

13. RECOGNITION OF CIRCUMSTANCES OF FORCE MAJEURE PRESUPPOSES THAT THE EXTERNAL CAUSE RELIED ON BY INDIVIDUALS HAS CONSEQUENCES WHICH ARE INEXORABLE AND INEVITABLE TO THE POINT OF MAKING IT OBJECTIVELY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE PERSONS CONCERNED TO COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS.

14. A STATE OF NECESSITY PRESUPPOSES A REAL THREAT TO THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNDERTAKING CONCERNED; THE CONSEQUENCES OF PERSONAL CONDUCT CANNOT JUSTIFY RELIANCE ON A STATE OF NECESSITY.

15. ARTICLE 6 (1) OF DECISION NO 962/77/ECSC MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT UNDERTAKINGS MAY NOT ALIGN THEIR PRICES ON THOSE FIXED BY THEIR COMPETITORS IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS IMPOSING MINIMUM PRICES WHICH MUST BE OBSERVED BY ALL COMMUNITY UNDERTAKINGS.

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):