Judgment_paragraph 2. · Mining undertakings of the Ruhr Basin being members of the Geitling selling agency for Ruhr coal, and the Geitling selling agency for Ruhr coal v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community (2/56)

2.The applicants also argue that in the reasons for its decision the High Authority is required, according to the case-law of the Court on Articles 5 and 15 of the Treaty (Judgment in Case 6/54), to mention the essential elements of the findings of fact on which the legal justification for the measure depends.Those findings are wanting as regards both(a) the finding as a fact that the rejected clause was of a nature restrictive of competition, and(b) the incompatibility of that clause with Article 65 (2)(a) and (b) of the Treaty and, accordingly, the absence of the conditions required for authorization.As to (a): In stating the factual reasons for its decision, the High Authority ought to have mentioned the objective finding, described in Article 4(b), resulting, in its view, in the possibility of altering the system of competition on the market: in particular it ought to have indicated where, in its view, a restriction on competition lay.It does not suffice to state that the authorization of the criterion would result in sharing the market and the customers. In addition, mention should have been made of the precise consequences liable to restrict competition, for example the effect on the number of wholesalers approved if the rejected clause was or was not applied.As to (b): There is no indication of the reasons for which the clause at issue could not, unlike the other clauses, be authorized under Article 65 (2).In its defence, for the first time, the defendant does not content itself with asserting that the clause is more restrictive than is necessary for the purpose of the agreement, but argues why such is the case: that the clause would enable the undertakings to determine the prices of a large part of the Community's coal production, to control extraction and sales and thus to restrict competition. Those reasons are not stated in the decision itself.

Mining undertakings of the Ruhr Basin being members of the Geitling selling agency for Ruhr coal, and the Geitling selling agency for Ruhr coal v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community (2/56)

Key facts

Connections

History · 1 version