186 / 336
Legal Europe
Proceedings of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities
On 13 and 14 May 1975 the Court of Justice was
visited by 85 J udges of Superior Courts of the Member
States. Two study days were devoted to problems of
Community law and case-law.
1. Judgments
Joined Cases 19 and 20/74. Kali und Salz Kali-
Chemie v Commission (14.5.75
The undertakings Kali und Salz and Kali-Chemie
AG are the only two German producers of potash.
In 1973 Kali und Salz, a member of the B.A.S.F.
group, accounted for 88.9% of the German production
and Kali-Chemie, a member of the Deutsche Solvay
Werke group, accounted for 11.1%.
In 1970 the two companies concluded an agree-
ment under which Kali-Chemi, which specializes in
the manufacture of a compound potash fertilizer, Rhe-
Kha-Phos, sold its excess straight potash to Kali und
Sa.lzfor marketing by that company.
By a decision of 1973 the Commission ocndemned
the agreement as constituting an infringement of the
rules of competition. According to the Commission's
decision the agreement between the applicants encom-
passed practically the total supply of straight potash
fertilizers in the Federal Republic of Germany and
therefore restricted competition on the market in this
product and affected trade between Member States.
The applicant companies challenged the Commiss-
ion's decision, demonstrating that Kali-Chemie decision
in which it held that this clause of the agreement con-
stituted an infringement of Article 85. An action
brought by the applicants for the annulment of the
Commission's decision was dismissed by the Court
of Justice of the European Communities.
Some of the form?] and substantive arguments ad-
duced by the parties may briefly be stated: the appli-
cants claimed that the Commission had stated its ob-
jections in an inadequate manner; they pointed out
that since 1961 the Commission had made use of the
Netherlands auctions for the purpose of fixing refer-
ence prices for fruit end vegetables, which would make
it difficult for it not to recognize their legality. The
Commission replied that there was nothing to pre-
vent it from making use of information provided by the
auctions.
The applicants also objected that the Commission
had not conformed to the objectives of the common
agricultural policy, to which the Commission replied
that the fruit in issue in this case was imported from
third countries.
The applicants also unsuccessfully claimed that the
Commission's decision wrongly stated that the agree-
ment in question restricted competition within the
Common Market.
On Monday 16th June, the President of the Re-
public of Ireland paid an official visit to the Court of
Justice. Mr. Cearbhall O Dalaigh was appointed Pres-
ident of the Republic of Ireland in December 1974
when he was a Judge of the Court of Justice of the
European Communities.
Case 7/75. F v Belgian State (preliminary rul-
ing) 17. 6. 75.
Mr. and Mrs. F, of Italian nationality, have been
resident in Belgium, where Mr. F is employed, since
1947. Their son, who was born in 1959, has been
handicapped from birth, ?nd apparently suffers from a
100% invalidity.
In 1973 Mr. and Mrs. F submitted a claim for a
handicapped person's grant under a Belgium law allow-
ing this grant to be made to Belgian citizens of at least
14 years of age suffering from a permanent disability
of at least 3 0% who are in financial difficulties. This
claim was rejected on the ground that the boy, who
did not have Belgian nationality, did not satify the re-
quirements as to residence in Belgium necessary for
benefit under the law. The Tribunal du Travail of
Nivelles, before which the case was brought by Mr
and Mrs. F, referred various questions for a preliminary
ruling to the Court of Justice on the interpretation of
Community regulations on freedom of movement for
workers within the Community and on the application
of social security schemes to employed persons and their
families moving within the Community, in relation
to the Belgian law on grants for handicapped persons.
The Tribunal of Nivelles also asked whether minors
who are entitled to benefit by reason of the fact that
their parents fulfilled the necessary conditions remain
entitled to benefit at the various stages of attainment
of 'their majority, without at that time having person-
ally to fulfil the conditions as to residence required up
to that time-of their parents.
The European Court, in accordance with the guid-
ing principle of its previous case-law, namely equali'ty
of treatment, ruled that the Community provisions
(Regulation No. 1408/71) are to be interpreted as in-
cluding a scheme under national law laying down a
legally-protected right to grants in respect of handi-
capped persons. It also ruled that in the application of
such a scheme 'the handicapped child of a worker can-
not be put at a disadvantages in relation to the nat-
ionals of 'the State in which he is resident and that such
equality of treatment cannot come to an end with the
attainment of majority if the child, by reason of his
handicap, is himself prevented from attaining the status
of worker.
182