The Gazette 1975

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.lz for 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