61959CO0004_EN
Parties
Grounds
Endorsements
Operative part
Parties
++++
IN JOINED CASES
4/59, MANNESMANN AG, DUSSELDORF,
5/59, RUHRSTAHL AG, WITTEN,
6/59, GUSSTAHLWERK GELSENKIRCHEN, GELSENKIRCHEN,
7/59, GUSSTAHLWERK WITTEN AG, WITTEN,
8/59, NIEDERRHEINISCHE HUTTE AG, DUISBURG,
9/59, BOCHUMER VEREIN FUR GUSSTAHLFABRIKATION AG, BOCHUM,
10/59, STAHLWERKE BOCHUM AG, BOCHUM,
11/59, AUGUST THYSSEN-HUTTE AG, DUISBURG-HAMBORN,
12/59, HUTTENWERK OBERHAUSEN AG, OBERHAUSEN,
13/59, PHOENIX-RHEINROHR AG, DUSSELDORF,
ASSISTED BY WERNER VON SIMSON, ADVOCATE OF THE OBERLANDESGERICHT DUSSELDORF,
V
HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, FRANS VAN HOUTEN, ACTING AS AGENT, ASSISTED BY WOLFGANG SCHNEIDER, ADVOCATE OF FRANKFURT AM MAIN,
Grounds
P . 160
ARTICLE 57 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF 4 MARCH 1953 PROVIDES THAT :
'WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF JUDGMENTS, THE COURT MAY, OF ITS OWN MOTION OR ON APPLICATION BY A PARTY, WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS, RECTIFY CLERICAL MISTAKES, ERRORS IN CALCULATION, AND SIMILAR OBVIOUS INACCURACIES .'
P . 161
THESE PROVISIONS CAN BE APPLIED TO THE FIRST PART OF THE APPLICATION; INDEED, IT WAS STATED IN THE JUDGMENT THAT THE EQUALIZATION AMOUNTS WERE PAID BY THE JOINT BUREAU ONLY AS THE RESULT OF AN OBVIOUS MATERIAL MISTAKE, WHEREAS IT IS EVIDENT, AND MOREOVER NOT DISPUTED BY THE PARTIES, THAT THE SUMS WERE PAID BY THE FUND .
THE JUDGMENT MUST THEREFORE BE RECTIFIED IN THAT PARTICULAR .
THE SECOND PART OF THE APPLICATION RESTS ON THE IDEA THAT THE EXPRESSION 'ORGAN' INCORRECTLY REPRODUCES THE COURT'S THINKING ON THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE HIGH AUTHORITY AND THE JOINT BUREAU . APPARENTLY, THE APPLICANT HAS REACHED THIS CONCLUSION BECAUSE IT INTERPRETS THE WORD 'ORGAN' AS MEANING THAT THE JOINT BUREAU IS IN ALL RESPECTS AN ORGAN OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY, AS MUCH IN ITS ORGANIZATION AS IN ITS POWERS .
ON THIS POINT, THE APPLICATION CONSTITUTES IN ACTUAL FACT AN ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN AN INTERPRETATION OF THE GROUNDS OF THE JUDGMENT . SUCH AN INTERPRETATION WOULD GO FAR BEYOND THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 57 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF 4 MARCH 1953 .
THIS PART OF THE APPLICATION IS THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE .
Endorsements
HAVING REGARD TO THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS;
UPON READING THE PLEADINGS;
UPON HEARING THE REPORT OF THE JUDGE-RAPPORTEUR;
UPON HEARING THE OPINION OF THE ADVOCATE - GENERAL;
HAVING REGARD TO ARTICLES 57 AND 60 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT OF 4 MARCH 1953;
Operative part
THE COURT
HEREBY :
1 . RECTIFIES THE JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 4 APRIL 1960 IN JOINED CASES 4 TO 13/59 IN THAT IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF HEADING II ( 2 ) OF THE GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT, WHERE IT IS STATED, '...WHETHER THERE ARE ANY GROUNDS ON WHICH THE APPLICANTS CAN BE TREATED AS LIABLE FOR AMOUNTS WRONGLY PAID BY THE JOINT BUREAU IN RESPECT OF EQUALIZATION', THE WORDS 'BY THE JOINT BUREAU' SHALL BE REPLACED BY WORDS 'BY THE FUND '.
2 . THE ORIGINAL OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE ANNEXED TO THE ORIGINAL OF THE RECTIFIED JUDGMENT; NOTE OF IT SHALL BE MADE IN THE MARGIN OF THE ORIGINAL .