«(Appeal – ECSC Treaty – Rejection of a complaint alleging discriminatory pricing and unreasonable royalties – Powers of the Commission)»

1.. ECSC – Provisions relating to discrimination as regards prices and other conditions of purchase – Commission's powers (ECSC Treaty, Arts 4(b) and 63(1))

2.. ECSC – Provisions relating to agreements and abuses of dominant positions – Commission's powers (ECSC Treaty, Arts 4(d) and 66(7))

3.. ECSC – Provisions relating to discrimination as regards prices and other conditions of purchase – Provisions relating to agreements and abuses of dominant positions – No rules laying down a limitation period for the exercise by the Commission of its powers – Observance of the requirements of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations – Decision on a complaint concerning an infringement committed several years prior to its lodging which has been the subject in the past of another complaint which the Commission refused to examine – Infringement of those requirements – Exclusion – Conditions (ECSC Treaty, Arts 63(1) and 66(7))

4.. Appeals – Grounds – Grounds of a judgment vitiated by an infringement of Community law – Operative part well founded on other legal grounds – Dismissal

5.. Actions for annulment – Pleas in law – Absence or inadequacy of reasons stated – Manifest error of assessment – Annulling judgment not drawing the necessary distinction between the two grounds of challenge – Judgment vitiated by an error in law (ECSC Treaty, Art. 33)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 2 October 2003 (1)

((Appeal – ECSC Treaty – Rejection of a complaint alleging discriminatory pricing and unreasonable royalties – Powers of the Commission))

In Joined Cases C-172/01 P, C-175/01 P, C-176/01 P and C-180/01 P,

appellants,

APPEALS against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber) of 7 February 2001 in Case T-89/98

the other party to the proceedings being:

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),,

composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges,

Advocate General: S. Alber,

having regard to the Report for the Hearing, after hearing oral argument from the parties at the hearing on 6 February 2003, at which International Power plc was represented by D. Anderson and M. Chamberlain, British Coal Corporation by D. Vaughan and D. Lloyd Jones, PowerGen (UK) plc by K.P.E. Lasok, the National Association of Licensed Opencast Operators (NALOO) by C. Quigley, barrister, and the Commission by A. Whelan and J.E. Flynn,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 8 May 2003,

gives the following

...

...

...XV. CONCLUSIONS

...

Admissibility of the appeals lodged by IP, BC and PG

Substance

The grounds of appeal concerning the assessment by the Court of First Instance of the Commission's powers

─ Arguments of the parties

─ Findings of the Court

Grounds of appeal relating to the assessment by the Court of First Instance of the single object of NALOO's complaints and to the principle of legal certainty

─ Arguments of the parties

─ Findings of the Court

Grounds of appeal concerning the Court of First Instance's finding that the Commission was obliged to investigate the 1994 complaint

Grounds of appeal concerning the applicability of Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty to the royalties for coal extraction

Grounds of appeal concerning the legality of the 1998 Decision

─ Arguments of the parties

─ Findings of the Court

The pleas relating to the Commission's assessment of the evidence submitted and the method proposed by NALOO for calculating the royalties

The plea relating to legitimate expectations

The plea concerning the applicability of Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty to the royalties for coal extraction

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),

hereby:

Wathelet

Edward

La Pergola

Jann

Rosas

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 2 October 2003.

R. Grass

M. Wathelet

Registrar

President of the Fifth Chamber