Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T10:31:02.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The European Coal and Steel Community: Operations of the First European Antitrust Law, 1952-1958

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2012

Hans A. Schmitt
Hans A. Schmitt
Affiliation:
Professor of HistoryTulane University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The nature and application of Europe's first supranational antitrust law are the subjects of Professor Schmitt's analysis. The problems and policies regarding mergers and combinations experienced during the first six years of ECSC are of particular importance in the study of the evolution of international government-business relationships.

Type
Research Article
Information
Business History Review , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , Spring 1964 , pp. 102 - 122
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Reuter, Paul, La Communauté Europeéenne du Charbon et de l'Acier (Paris, 1953)Google Scholar and Institut Royal des Relations Internationales, La Communauté Européenne du Charbon et de l'Acier (Brussels, 1953)Google Scholar, present authoritative analyses of the treaty. Some of the major general studies on the Community and its operations include: Mason, Henry L., The European Coal and Steel Community: Experiment in Supranationalism (The Hague, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Diebold, William Jr., The Schuman Plan: A Study in Economic Cooperation, 1950–1959 (New York, 1959)Google Scholar; Haas, Ernst B., The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social, and Economic Forces, 1950–1957 (Stanford, 1958)Google Scholar; Lister, Louis, Europe's Coal and Steel Community: An Experiment in Economic Union (New York, 1960)Google Scholar; and Schmitt, Hans A., The Path to European Union: From the Marshall Plan to the Common Market (Baton Rouge, 1962)Google Scholar.

2 Schmitt, Path to European Union, pp. 87–166 treats all ECSC institutions at some length. There is no special study of the High Authority, although it must be remembered that any account of its operations becomes in the final analysis a history of the Community. For its structure, personnel, and modus operandi see Merry, Henry J., “The European Coal and Steel Community: Operations of the High Authority,” Western Political Quarterly, vol. VIII (June, 1955), pp. 166–85Google Scholar. On the Common Assembly, Kapteyn, P. J. G., L'Assemblée Commune de la Communauté Européenne du Charbon et de l'Acier (Leyden, 1962)Google Scholar, constitutes an important contribution. The absence of any study on the Council of Ministers is balanced by numerous works on the Court. Here the layman will find van Houtte, Albert, “La Cour de Justice de la Communauté Européenne du Charbon et de l'Acier,” European Yearbook, vol. II (The Hague, 1956), pp. 183–222Google Scholar, the best introduction, while the student will recognize Bebr, Gerhard, Judicial Control of the European Communities (New York, 1962)Google Scholar, as the broadest and most up-to-date treatment.

3 Kern, Peter R., Das Recht der Untemehmerzusammenschlüsse in der Montanunion (Berlin, 1955), pp. 17–19Google Scholar; Kleps, Karlheinz, Kartellpolitik und Energiewirtschaft in der Montanunion (Ökonomische Studien, Heft 7, Stuttgart, 1961), pp. 4–7Google Scholar.

4 Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, and the Saar.

5 Lederer, J. J., “La sidérurgie européenne et les cartels avant le plan Schuman,” Politique Étrangère, vol. XVI (December, 1951), pp. 397–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for a more detailed treatment, coupled with an analysis of its impact, see Kirsch, Günther, Internationale Eisen- und Stahlkartelle (Rheinisch Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Schriftenreihe, Neue Folge, Nr. 4, Essen, 1954)Google Scholar.

6 Gerbet, Pierre, “La Genèse du Plan Schuman,” Revue Française de Science Politique, vol. VI (July-September, 1956), p. 529Google Scholar.

7 Kleps, Kartellpolitik, pp. 80–104; Lister, Europe's Coal and Steel Community, pp. 141–42, 165–67, 256–59.

8 Schmitt, Path to European Union, pp. 72–73.

9 Treaty Establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, English translation published by the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community (Luxembourg, n.d.), Art. 36Google Scholar. Hereafter cited as Treaty.

10 Ibid., Art. 4-d.

11 Ibid., Art 5. On this dilemma and its implications see Simson, Werner von, “Kartelle und Zusammenschlüsse in der Montan-Union: Zur bisherigen Praxis der Hohen Behörde,” Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, vol. V (July-August, 1955), p. 410Google Scholar, and Petrick, J. W., “Kartelle und Zusammenschlüsse im gemeinsamen Markt,” Bergbau und Wirtschaft, vol. X (January, 1957), p. 21Google Scholar. On the absence of a clear definition of “normal competition,” see HA Vice-President Franz Etzel in ECSC, Common Assembly, Ausschuss über Fragen des Gemeinsamen Marktes, Sitzungsbericht, April 13, 1954.

12 Treaty, Art. 48.

13 Ibid., Art. 60–1 and 2.

14 Ibid., Art. 65; Krawielicki, Robert, Das Monopolverbot im Schumanplan (Tübingen, 1952), pp. 33–34Google Scholar.

15 S. R. Denison, “The European Coal and Steel Community,” Lloyd's Bank Review (July, 1955), p. 13; University of Maryland, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, “The European Coal and Steel Community, Part I,” Studies in Business and Economics, vol. IX (December, 1955), p. 10Google Scholar; Kern, Das Recht der Unternehmerzusammenschlüsse, pp. 36–39.

16 Treaty, Arts. 60–1 and 2, 64.

17 Ibid., Art 66–4; Krawielicki, Das Monopolverbot, pp. 33–34.

18 ECSC, HA, The High Authority and the Trusts (Information Document No. 2, Luxemburg, 1955), p. 10Google Scholar; Kern, Das Recht der Untemehmerzusammenschlüsse, p. 96.

19 France, Ministère des Affaires Étrangères, Rapport de la Délégation Française (Paris, 1951), p. 97Google Scholar.

20 France, Journal Officiel, Débate Parlementaires, Assemblée Nationale, 7 décembre 1951, pp. 8854–56.

21 For a text of the major provisions of this law see, Germany, Amt, Auswärtiges, Materialien zum Vertrag über die Gründung der Europäischen Gemeinschaft für Kohle und Stahl (Schuman-Plan) (Bonn, 1951), pp. 31–34Google Scholar.

22 ECSC, CA, Die Debatten über den EGKS-Vertrag in den nationalen Parliamenten (Luxembourg, 1958), pp. 82–83Google Scholar; Coenen, Ernst, “Das Verhältnis des Entflechtungsrechts in Deutschland zum Montanunionsvertrag,” Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, vol. VI (February, 1956), pp. 95–96Google Scholar.

23 Mason, European Coal and Steel Community, pp. 27–29; Schmitt, Path to European Union, pp. 77–81.

24 To the best of the writer's knowledge, these reflections cannot be documented. They were brought out in various conversations he had with members of the Cartels and Concentrations Division of the High Authority during a one-year stay in Luxembourg from 1956 to 1957.

23 Two other members of the Commission of Six, F. Vinck (Belgium) and C. B. Balladore-Pallieri (Italy), subsequently headed directorates in the High Authority.

26 He held the position until his retirement in 1960 and remained advisor to the ECSC until his death in April, 1961.

27 Convention containing the Transitional Provisions, Par. 12.

28 ECSC, Journal Officiel, July 21, 1953, p. 153. Hereafter cited JO.

29 ECSC, Journal Officiel, Débats de l'Assembée Commune, Séance du 15 Juin 1953, p. 19.

30 JO, June 13, 1956, p. 71.

31 Cf. Treaty, Art. 65, 1-C.

32 Cf. ibid., Art. 65, 2-A. On this subject see Houssiaux, Jacques, Concurrence et Marché Commun (Paris, 1960), p. 84Google Scholar.

33 JO, July 6, 1954, p. 433.

34 Ibid., pp. 434–36.

35 Cf. Treaty, Art. 65, 2a and b.

36 JO, March 13, 1956, pp. 29–70.

37 Ibid.., 58; Isay, Rudolf, “Montan-Union und Export-Kartelle,” Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb, vol. III (October, 1953), p. 591Google Scholar.

38 JO, July 26, 1955, pp. 874–75.

39 ECSC, HA, Quatrième Rapport Général sur l'Activité de la Communauté (Luxembourg, 1956), p. 146Google Scholar.

40 ECSC, HA, Sixième Rapport Général (Luxembourg, 1958), pp. 106–107Google Scholar.

41 ECSC, HA, Quatrième Rapport Général, pp. 140–41. For a critical summary of these decisions, see Ashkenazy, H., “La réorganisation des comptoirs de vente de charbon de la Ruhr,” Revue Française de l'Energie, vol. VII (October, 1956), pp. 337–47Google Scholar.

42 ECSC, HA, Septième Rapport Général (Luxembourg, 1959), pp. 172–78Google Scholar. A new settlement was announced in January, 1963, establishing two sales agencies which will only handle coal not used by producers or industries linked to them. Cf. European Community, no. 62 (April-May, 1963), p. 14.

43 Ibid., pp. 109–113. For an opposing French view, see Jacques Grandidier, “Le problème de l'Atic,” Bulletin du Centre International d'Information, October 25, 1956.

44 ECSC, HA, Huitième Rapport Général (Luxembourg, 1960), p. 187Google Scholar; Neuvième Rapport Général (Luxembourg, 1961), pp. 197–98Google Scholar.

45 Cf. ECSC, HA, Dixième Rapport Général (Luxembourg, 1962), pp. 256–58Google Scholar.

46 JO, May 11, 1954, pp. 345–51.

47 ECSC, HA, Deuxtème Rapport Général, p. 123.

48 ECSC, HA, Sixième Rapport Général, II, pp. 116–17.

49 Writer's interview with Dr. Richard Hamburger, March 21, 1958.

50 ECSC, HA, “Politik der Hohen Behörde bei der Behandlung der Anträge auf Zusammenschlüsse,” Dokument No. 5170/60d, pp. 20–22.

51 Lister, Europe's Coal and Steel Community, p. 138.

52 Meade, J. E. et al. , , Case Studies in European Economic Union (London, 1962), p. 286Google Scholar.

53 ECSC, HA, “Politik der Hohen Behörde bei der Behandlung der Anträge auf Zusammenschlüsse,” p. 6.

54 On this venture, which was also interesting as an experiment in social readaptation, see ECSC, HA, “New Deal for French Steel,” Doc. No. 2684/55e, p. 55.

55 ECSC, HA, “Politik der Hohen Behörde bei der Behandlung der Anträge auf Zusammenschlüsse,” pp. 8–11.

56 JO, May 11, 1955, pp. 742–43.

57 Ibid., November 16, 1956, p. 316 and December 27, 1956, pp. 412–13.

58 Cf. Die Neuordnung der Eisen- und Stahlindustrie im Gebiete der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Munich, 1954), pp. 226–31Google Scholar.

59 ECSC, CA, Commission du Marché Commun, “Avant-projet de rapport sur les concentrations d'entreprises dans la Communauté par M. Henri Fayat…” Doc. AC 3034/57, p. 12.

60 “La reconcentration des industries sidérurgiques et minières d'Allemagne de l'Ouest dans le cadre de la CECA,” Politique Etrangère, vol. XX (December, 1955), pp. 723–25Google Scholar.

61 Meade, et al., Case Studies in European Economic Union, p. 282.

62 Richard A. Hamburger to writer, June 7, 1958.

63 Schmitt, Path to European Union, p. 193; Meade, et al., Case Studies in European Economic Union, p. 278.

64 Spaak, Fernand, “Competition in ECSC,” 1960 Institute on Legal Aspects of the European Community (Washington, D. C., 1960), p. 129Google Scholar.

65 ECSC, HA, “Report on the factfinding [sic] Mission to the United States… for the purpose of studying Anti-Trust Practices there, 8.3–6.4 1958,” Doc. 5879/58e, pp. 12–22, 37.

67 Hamburger, Richard A., “Coal and Steel Community, Rules for a competitive Market and their Application” (Unpublished manuscript, Luxembourg, 1960), p. 35Google Scholar.