ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court of 18 May 1960. - Mannesmann AG and others v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community. - Joined cases 4-59 to 13-59.



European Court reports

French edition Page 00339

Dutch edition Page 00347

German edition Page 00345

Italian edition Page 00329

English special edition Page 00159



Parties

Grounds

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 .

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 .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . SUSPENSION OF OPERATION OF A DECISION OF REJECTION - ADMISSIBILITY

2 . SUSPENSION OF OPERATION - CONDITION FOR THE GRANT THEREOF

Summary

1 . THE SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF A DECISION CONSTITUTING A REFUSAL OF AUTHORIZATION IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO THE GRANT OF THE AUTHORIZATION REFUSED . THAT AUTHORIZATION MAY BE GRANTED ONLY BY THE ADMINISTRATION, OVER WHICH THE COURT HAS NO POWER OF DIRECTION . THE 'OTHER...INTERIM MEASURES' REFERRED TO IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 39 OF THE ECSC TREATY CAN ONLY BE OF A CONSERVATORY NATURE AND DO NOT GIVE THE COURT THE POWER TO SUBSTITUTE ITSELF FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OR TO TAKE, EVEN PROVISIONALLY, ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS IN PLACE OF THE EXECUTIVE .

2 . THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR GRANTING A SUSPENSION OF OPERATION WHERE THE APPLICANTS FAIL TO ESTABLISH THAT THE MEASURES PRESCRIBED BY THE CONTESTED DECISION WOULD CAUSE THEM DAMAGE WHICH COULD NOT BE REDRESSED IF THE DECISION WERE ANNULLED AT THE HEARING OF THE MAIN ACTION .
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 September 1964. - Jean Maudet v Commission of the European Economic Community. - Joined cases 20/63 and 21/63.



European Court reports

French edition Page 01209

Dutch edition Page 01271

German edition Page 01323

Italian edition Page 01193

English special edition Page 00621



Parties

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

++++

IN JOINED CASES 20 AND 21/63

JEAN MAUDET, AN OFFICIAL OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY, REPRESENTED BY LOUIS ROUSSEAU, ADVOCATE AT THE CONSEIL D'ETAT AND COUR DE CASSATION, PARIS, APPLICANT,

V

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, LOUIS DE LA FONTAINE, ACTING AS AGENT, DEFENDANT,

Grounds

WHEREAS UNDER SUBPARAGRAPH ( B ) OF ARTICLE 73 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT, THE ONLY RECOVERABLE FEES FOR ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE ARE THOSE NECESSARILY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS;

WHEREAS SERVICES SUPPLIED TO THE APPLICANT BY THE LAWYER PROVIDING THE ADDRESS FOR SERVICE AND WHICH INVOLVE THE PAYMENT OF FEES BEAR A RESEMBLANCE TO SERVICES SUPPLIED BY THE APPLICANT'S ADVISER OR LAWYER; WHEREAS IN THIS RESPECT THE ABOVE PROVISION STATES THAT ONLY THE REMUNERATION DUE TO AN ADVISER OR LAWYER SHALL BE RECOVERABLE;

WHEREAS THE ONLY OBLIGATION ON PRIVATE PARTIES UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 17 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EEC IS THAT IN ACTIONS BEFORE THE COURT THEY SHALL BE REPRESENTED BY A LAWYER;

WHEREAS, THEREFORE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SUBPARAGRAH ( B ) OF ARTICLE 73 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, ONLY THE REMUNERATION OF THE LAWYER REPRESENTING A PRIVATE PARTY IN AN ACTION BEFORE THE COURT MAY BE REGARDED AS NECESSARY EXPENSES OF LEGAL ASSISTANCE;

WHEREAS, THEREFORE, WHILST A PARTY TO AN ACTION BEFORE THE COURT IS FREE TO EMPLOY AN ADVISER IN ADDITION TO THE LAWYER REPRESENTING HIM BEFORE THE COURT, THE ADDITIONAL EXPENSES INCURRED AS A RESULT OF SO DOING CANNOT BE RECOVERABLE;

WHEREAS, THEREFORE, EXPENSES INCURRED IN THIS CASE AS A RESULT OF MR ARENDT'S SERVICES ARE RECOVERABLE ONLY IN SO FAR AS THE FEES FOR ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE IN THE PROPER SENSE ARE CONCERNED AND ANY FEES PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES ARE NOT SO RECOVERABLE,

Operative part

THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER )

HEREBY ORDERS :

THE TOTAL SUM RECOVERABLE IN THIS CASE BY WAY OF FEES FOR ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE SHALL BE FIXED AT 2500 LUXEMBOURG FRANCS .
Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 May 1967. - Società Industriale Metallurgica di Napoli (Simet) v High Authority of the ECSC. - Case 25-65.



European Court reports

French edition Page 00145

Dutch edition Page 00140

German edition Page 00150

Italian edition Page 00130

English special edition Page 00113



Parties

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

++++

IN CASE 25/65

SOCIETA INDUSTRIALE METALLURGICA DI NAPOLI ( SIMET )

V

HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY,

HAVING REGARD TO THE JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY THE COURT ON 2 MARCH 1967 IN JOINED CASES 25 AND 26/65 ( SOCIETA INDUSTRIALE METALLURGICA DI NAPOLI, SIMET, AND ACIAIERIE FERRIERE DI ROMA, FERAM, V HIGH AUTHORITY );

Grounds

WHEREAS BY THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT, THE HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY WAS ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS OF CASE 25/65;

WHEREAS IN REPLY TO THE STATEMENT OF FEES AND EXPENSES SENT ON 27 MARCH 1967 BY ARTURO COTTRAU, COUNSEL FOR THE SIMET COMPANY, TO THE HIGH AUTHORITY, THE AGENT OF THE LATTER, ITALO TELCHINI, BY LETTER DATED 6 APRIL 1967, INFORMED MR COTTRAU ' THAT IN PURSUANCE OF A PRACTICE HITHERTO ADOPTED IN SIMILAR CASES, THE HIGH AUTHORITY WAITS UNTIL THE COURT HAS PRONOUNCED UPON THE SETTLEMENT OF FEES BEFORE CONSIDERING THE QUESTION OF PAYING THEM ' AND THAT IT WAS THEREFORE APPROPRIATE THAT HE SHOULD MAKE AN APPLICATION TO THE COURT IN THIS MATTER, ' IN CONFORMITY WITH ARTICLE 74 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ';

WHEREAS MR COTTRAU, ON 14 APRIL 1967, MADE AN APPLICATION TO THE COURT FOR AN ORDER FROM WHICH NO APPEAL SHALL LIE REGARDING PAYMENT OF THE COSTS WHICH HE STATES HE HAS ADVANCED;

WHEREAS, IN ITS OBSERVATIONS LODGED ON 25 APRIL 1967, THE HIGH AUTHORITY STATED, AS REGARDS THE AMOUNT OF THE COSTS, THAT IT WAS CONTENT TO LEAVE THE MATTER FOR THE DECISION OF THE COURT, BUT THAT IT WAS OPPOSED TO THE LIQUIDATED FEES AND EXPENSES BEING PAID TO MR COTTRAU PERSONALLY;

WHEREAS, UNDER ARTICLE 74(1 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE CHAMBER TO WHICH THE CASE HAS BEEN ASSIGNED SHALL MAKE AN ORDER CONCERNING THE COSTS TO BE RECOVERED ONLY ' IF THERE IS A DISPUTE ';

WHEREAS, IN THIS CASE, AT THE DATE ON WHICH THE APPLICANT APPLIED TO THE COURT FOR AN ORDER, THERE EXISTED BETWEEN THE PARTIES NO DISPUTE REGARDING EITHER THE AMOUNT OF THE COSTS TO BE RECOVERED OR THEIR PAYMENT;

WHEREAS, THEREFORE, AS THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 74(1 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ARE NOT FULFILLED, THE APPLICATION MUST BE DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE;

Operative part

THE COURT ( SECOND CHAMBER )

COMPOSED OF : R . MONACO, PRESIDENT, CH . L . HAMMES ( RAPPORTEUR ) AND A.M . DONNER, JUDGES,

ADVOCATE-GENERAL : J . GAND

REGISTRAR : A . VAN HOUTTE

HEREBY ORDERS :

THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE APPLICANT IN THE MAIN ACTION FOR AN ORDER CONCERNING THE COSTS TO BE RECOVERED IS DISMISSED .
Order of the Court of 16 May 1968. - Firma Kurt A. Becher v Hauptzollamt München-Landsbergerstrasse. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Finanzgericht München - Germany. - Case 13-67.



European Court reports

French edition Page 00289

Dutch edition Page 00278

German edition Page 00296

Italian edition Page 00262

English special edition Page 00196



Parties

Subject of the case

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

++++

IN CASE 13/67

REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE FINANZGERICHT ( FINANCE COURT ), MUNICH, FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING ( GIVEN BY THE COURT ON 4 APRIL 1968 ) IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT BETWEEN

FIRMA KURT A . BECHER, MUNICH,

AND

HAUPTZOLLAMT ( PRINCIPAL CUSTOMS OFFICE ) MUENCHEN-LANDSBERGERSTRASSE,

Subject of the case

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLES 95 AND 97 OF THE EEC TREATY,

Grounds

WHEREAS BY APPLICATION MADE ON 2 MAY 1968 THE BECHER UNDERTAKING REQUESTED THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 67 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ' TO SUPPLEMENT THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 4 APRIL 1968 SO THAT QUESTIONS II AND III PUT BY THE COURT MAKING THE REFERENCE MIGHT RECEIVE A COMPLETE ANSWER '.

WHEREAS, IN THE EVENT OF THE COURT'S CONSIDERING THIS REQUEST TO BE INADMISSIBLE, THE BECHER UNDERTAKING CONSIDERS THAT AT ALL EVENTS IT IS ADMISSIBLE UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EEC;

P . 197

WHEREAS ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY ESTABLISHES A DIRECT FORM OF CO-OPERATION BETWEEN THE COURT OF JUSTICE AND THE NATIONAL COURTS OR TRIBUNALS BY MEANS OF A NON-CONTENTIOUS PROCEDURE, IN WHICH THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN ACTION CANNOT TAKE ANY INITIATIVE AND DURING THE COURSE OF WHICH THEY ARE ONLY INVITED TO SUBMIT THEIR OBSERVATIONS WITHIN THE LEGAL CONTEXT OUTLINED BY THE COURT MAKING THE REFERENCE;

WHEREAS, ALTHOUGH WITHIN THE LIMITS FIXED BY ARTICLE 177 IT IS THUS EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE NATIONAL COURTS OR TRIBUNALS TO DECIDE WHETHER TO MAKE A REFERENCE AND WHAT ITS SUBJECT-MATTER SHOULD BE, IT FOLLOWS THAT IT IS ALSO EXCLUSIVELY FOR THOSE COURTS OR TRIBUNALS TO DECIDE WHETHER THEY HAVE RECEIVED ADEQUATE CLARIFICATION BY THE PRELIMINARY RULING GIVEN UPON THEIR REQUEST, OR WHETHER THEY CONSIDER IT NECESSARY TO MAKE A FURTHER REFERENCE TO THE COURT;

WHEREAS, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN ACTION CANNOT RELY ON ARTICLE 67 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE IN ORDER TO ASK THE COURT TO SUPPLEMENT JUDGMENTS DELIVERED BY VIRTUE OF THE SAID ARTICLE 177;

WHEREAS, WHILST ARTICLE 40 OF THE STATUTE MIGHT BE APPLICABLE TO PRELIMINARY MATTERS, NEVERTHELESS THIS PROVISION CANNOT BE RELIED ON BY THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN ACTION;

WHEREAS IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE PRESENT APPLICATION MUST BE DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE;

WHEREAS THERE IS NO NEED TO MAKE ANY ORDER AS TO COSTS AS NONE HAVE BEEN INCREASED;

Operative part

THE COURT

COMPOSED OF : R . LECOURT, PRESIDENT, A.M . DONNER AND W . STRAUSS ( RAPPORTEUR ), PRESIDENTS OF CHAMBERS, A . TRABUCCHI, R . MONACO, J . MERTENS DE WILMARS AND P . PESCATORE, JUDGES,

ADVOCATE-GENERAL : J . GAND

REGISTRAR : A . VAN HOUTTE

HEREBY ORDERS :

THE APPLICATION OF THE BECHER UNDERTAKING IS INADMISSIBLE .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS - REFERENCE TO THE COURT - APPRAISAL BY NATIONAL COURT - REQUEST BY THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF A PRELIMINARY RULING - INADMISSIBILITY

( EEC TREATY , ART . 177 ; STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EEC , ART . 40 ; RULES OF PROCEDURE , ART . 102 )

Summary

ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY MAKES PROVISION FOR DIRECT CO-OPERATION BETWEEN THE COURT OF JUSTICE AND THE NATIONAL COURTS BASED ON A NON-CONTENTIOUS PROCEDURE IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY STEPS TAKEN BY THE PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS AND IN THE COURSE OF WHICH SUCH PARTIES ARE MERELY INVITED TO SUBMIT OBSERVATIONS WITHIN THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK SET OUT BY THE COURT MAKING THE REFERENCE .

SINCE , WITHIN THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY ARTICLE 177 , IT IS THUS FOR THE NATIONAL COURTS ALONE TO DECIDE ON THE PRINCIPLE AND PURPOSE OF ANY REFERENCE TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE IT FOLLOWS THAT IT IS ALSO THE TASK OF SUCH COURTS ALONE TO APPRAISE WHETHER THEY HAVE OBTAINED SUFFICIENT GUIDANCE FROM THE PRELIMINARY RULING DELIVERED IN RESPONSE TO THEIR QUESTION OR TO THE QUESTION OF A LOWER COURT OR WHETHER IT APPEARS TO THEM NECESSARY TO REFER THE MATTER ONCE MORE TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE . ACCORDINGLY THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN ACTION CANNOT RELY ON ARTICLE 40 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EEC OR ON ARTICLE 102 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE IN ORDER TO REQUEST THE COURT TO INTERPRET JUDGMENTS DELIVERED IN PURSUANCE OF THE SAID ARTICLE 177 .
Order of the Court of 1 May 1974. - Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic. - Case 172-73.



European Court reports 1974 Page 00475



Parties

Subject of the case

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

++++

IN CASE 172/73

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

V

REPUBLIC OF ITALY

Subject of the case

APPLICATION FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE REPUBLIC OF ITALY HAS FAILED TO FULFIL ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EEC, ESPECIALLY ARTICLES 9, 12, 13 ( 2 ) AND 16, AND UNDER THE REGULATIONS ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETS OR OF TRADE ARRANGEMENTS, IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 189 OF THE SAID TREATY, BY LEVYING UNLOADING CHARGES ON GOODS IMPORTED BY SEA FROM OTHER MEMBER STATES OF THE EEC AND ON GOODS IMPORTED FROM THE SAID STATES OR EXPORTED TO THE SAID STATES BY AIR,

Grounds

ON 9 OCTOBER 1973, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED TO THE COURT AN APPLICATION FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE REPUBLIC OF ITALY HAD FAILED TO FULFIL ITS OBLIGATIONS .

THE REPUBLIC OF ITALY, DESPITE THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 40 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, HAS FAILED TO LODGE ITS STATEMENT OF DEFENCE WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED, ARGUING THAT THE PROCEDURE TO AMEND THE ITALIAN LAW CONCERNED HAD NOT YET BEEN COMMENCED .

SUBSEQUENTLY, THE DEFENDANT INFORMED THE APPLICANT THAT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CASE-LAW OF THE COURT AND CONFIRMED IN ITS OPINION BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE CORTE COSTITUZIONALE OF ITALY OF 27 DECEMBER 1973 DECLARING THE PRECEDENCE OF COMMUNITY LAW, THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT HAD TAKEN MEASURES TO SUSPEND THE LEVYING OF LOADING AND UNLOADING CHARGES AND ASKED THE COMMISSION TO DISCONTINUE THE PROCEEDINGS AS THE LATTER HAD, IN ITS OPINION, BECOME DEVOID OF OBJECT FOLLOWING THESE NEW DEVELOPMENTS .

THE APPLICANT AGREED AND, IN A LETTER RECEIVED AT THE REGISTRY ON 22 MARCH 1974, DECLARED THAT IT WAS WITHDRAWING ITS ACTION . IT SUBMITTED THAT THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE ORDERED TO BEAR THE COSTS .

THE DEFENDANT, BY TELEX RECEIVED AT THE COURT ON 10 APRIL 1974, DECLARED THAT IT HAD TAKEN FORMAL NOTICE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED LETTER OF THE APPLICANT .

Operative part

ORDERS

1 . CASE 172/73 IS REMOVED FROM THE REGISTER OF THE COURT .

2 . THE DEFENDANT MUST BEAR THE COSTS .
Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 17 September 1974. - Luigi Vellozzi v Commission of the European Communities. - Case 62-74 R.



European Court reports 1974 Page 00895



Parties

Subject of the case

Grounds

Decision on costs

Operative part



Parties

++++

IN CASE 62/74 R

LUIGI VELLOZZI, AN OFFICIAL OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, REPRESENTED BY EMILE DRAPPIER, ADVOCATE AT THE COUR D'APPEL OF BRUSSELS, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF ERNEST ARENDT, 34 B RUE PHILIPPE II, APPLICANT,

V

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, THOMAS F . CUSACK, ACTING AS AGENT, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF P . LAMOUREUX, LEGAL ADVISER TO THE COMMISSION, 4 BOULEVARD ROYAL, DEFENDANT,

Subject of the case

APPLICATION TO SUSPEND THE OPERATION OF THE MEASURE SUSPENDING PAYMENT OF REMUNERATION, ADOPTED ON THE BASIS OF ARTICLE 60 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER .

Grounds

1 UNDER ARTICLE 83 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT, SUSPENSION OF OPERATION IS SUBJECT TO THE EXISTENCE OF CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO URGENCY AND OF GROUNDS ESTABLISHING A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR SUCH A MEASURE .

2 IN SUPPORT OF HIS INTERIM APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT HAS ASSERTED THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION WOULD DEPRIVE HIM OF HIS MEANS OF SUBSISTENCE, WHICH HAVE, UNTIL NOW, BEEN HIS REMUNERATION .

3 AT THIS STAGE IN THE PROCEDURE, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FORESEE THE OUTCOME OF THE MAIN ACTION .

4 IF THE APPLICANT SUCCEEDS IN HIS PLEAS, HE WILL BE ENTITLED TO PAYMENT OF THE REMUNERATION WITHHELD BY THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION .

5 IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE COURT HAVING ORDERED THE COMMISSION TO SUSPEND THE OPERATION OF ITS DECISION, THE APPLICANT WERE TO FAIL IN THE MAIN ACTION, THE COMMISSION WOULD BE AUTHORIZED, IN PURSUANCE OF ARTICLE 85 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS, TO RECOVER ANY SUMS PAID IN ERROR .

6 UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE COURT GIVES ITS JUDGMENT THE OPERATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION IS, THEREFORE, NOT OF SUCH A NATURE, DESPITE THE ALLEGEDLY DIFFICULT SITUATION IN WHICH THE APPLICANT IS PLACED, AS TO CAUSE SERIOUS OR IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO HIS RIGHTS AND INTERESTS .

7 CONSEQUENTLY, HIS INTERIM APPLICATION MUST BE DISMISSED .

Decision on costs

8 IT IS APPROPRIATE, AT THIS STAGE, TO RESERVE COSTS .

Operative part

ON THOSE GROUNDS,

THE PRESIDENT

AS AN INTERIM RULING,

ORDERS :

1 . THE INTERIM APPLICATION IS DISMISSED;

2 . THE COSTS ARE RESERVED .
Order of the Court of 1 July 1981. - DGV Deutsche Getreideverwertung und Rheinische Kraftfutterwerke GmbH and others v European Economic Community. - Joined cases 241, 242 and 246 to 249/78.



European Court reports 1981 Page 01727



Parties

Subject of the case

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

241/78 DGV DEUTSCHE GETREIDEVERWERTUNG UND RHEINISCHE KRAFTFUTTERWERKE GMBH ,

242/78 WERHAHN HANSAMUHLE ,

246/78 SPRL MASELIS FRERES ,

247/78CODRICO BV ,

248/78HANSA-LAGERHAUS STROH ,

249/78BV MEELFABRIEK WEERT ,

APPLICANTS ,

V

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY ,

REPRESENTED BY ITS INSTITUTIONS :

1 . COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ,

2 . COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ,

DEFENDANT ,

Subject of the case

APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 178 AND THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 215 OF THE EEC TREATY ,

Grounds

1 IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE PARTIES HAVE ESTABLISHED THE AMOUNTS OF COMPENSATION BY AGREEMENT , CASES 241 , 242 AND 246 TO 249/78 MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE COURT REGISTER .

2 IN PURSUANCE OF ARTICLE 69 ( 1 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE COURT IS TO GIVE A DECISION AS TO COSTS IN ITS FINAL JUDGMENT OR IN THE ORDER WHICH CLOSES THE PROCEEDINGS .

3 IN ITS INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT OF 4 OCTOBER 1979 (( 1979 ) ECR 3017 ) IN THESE CASES THE COURT RESERVED THE COSTS .

4 BY LETTERS OF 5 JANUARY 1981 THE APPLICANTS IN THESE CASES ASKED THE COURT TO ADJUDICATE ON THE COSTS RECOVERABLE .

5 THE COURT MUST THEREFORE ADJUDICATE ON THE SHARING OF COSTS IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE SECOND CHAMBER TO TAX THE RECOVERABLE COSTS .

6 UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY IS TO BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .

7 UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 3 ) THE COURT MAY , WHERE EACH PARTY SUCCEEDS ON SOME AND FAILS ON OTHER HEADS OR WHERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE EXCEPTIONAL , ORDER THE PARTIES TO BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS IN WHOLE OR IN PART .

8 IT MAY BE SEEN FROM THE INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT THAT THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION WERE UNSUCCESSFUL AS REGARDS ALL THEIR LEGAL SUBMISSIONS . THE REDUCTIONS IN THE AMOUNTS CLAIMED , WHICH WERE MADE FOLLOWING NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES ARE NOT SO GREAT AS TO HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE SHARING OF COSTS .

9 THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY MUST THEREFORE BE ORDERED TO BEAR THE WHOLE OF THE COSTS .

Operative part

ON THOSE GROUNDS ,

THE COURT

HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS :

1 . CASES 241 , 242 AND 246 TO 249/78 ARE REMOVED FROM THE COURT REGISTER .

2 . THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY SHALL BEAR THE COSTS .
Order of the President of the Court of 27 March 1979. - Société des Aciéries de Montereau v Commission of the European Communities. - Case 31-79 R.



European Court reports 1979 Page 01077



Parties

Grounds

Decision on costs

Operative part



Parties

IN CASE 31/79 R

SOCIETE DES ACIERIES DE MONTEREAU , MONTEREAU FAULT YONNE , FRANCE , REPRESENTED AND ASSISTED BY MESSRS BRUCKHAUS , KREIFELS , WINKHAUS , LIEBERKNECHT , CANENBLEY AND MOOSECKER , 2 BERLINER ALLEE , DUSSELDORF , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF ALEX BONN , 22 COTE D ' EICH ,

APPLICANT ,

V

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , REPRESENTED BY GOTZ ZUR HAUSEN , A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION ' S LEGAL DEPARTMENT , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF MARIO CERVINO , LEGAL ADVISER TO THE COMMISSION , JEAN MONNET BUILDING , KIRCHBERG ,

DEFENDANT ,

Grounds

1ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 83 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , AN APPLICATION TO SUSPEND THE OPERATION OF ANY MEASURE ADOPTED BY AN INSTITUTION MUST STATE THE CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO URGENCY AND THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS ESTABLISHING A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR THE INTERIM MEASURES APPLIED FOR .

2THERE IS NO NEED TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE GROUNDS INVOKED BY THE APPLICANT , NAMELY ITS ' ' EXTREMELY DIFFICULT ECONOMIC SITUATION ' ' AND THE FINANCIAL DISADVANTAGES ATTACHED TO IMMEDIATE PAYMENT OF THE FINE ARE OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO CONSTITUTE A SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR SUSPENDING THE OPERATION OF THE CONTESTED DECISION .

AS THE COMMISSION HAS STATED THAT IT IS WILLING NOT TO PROCEED TO ENFORCEMENT OF THE CONTESTED DECISION AS LONG AS THE MAIN ACTION IS PENDING IT IS IN ANY EVENT CERTAIN THAT THE SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF THE COMMISSION DECISION OF 10 JANUARY 1979 WHICH HAS BEEN REQUESTED IS NEITHER URGENT NOR JUSTIFIED .

THE APPLICATION MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED .

Decision on costs

3COSTS SHOULD BE RESERVED UNTIL FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE MAIN ACTION .

Operative part

ON THOSE GROUNDS , THE PRESIDENT , AS AN INTERLOCUTORY DECISION , HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS :

1 . THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED .

2 . COSTS ARE RESERVED UNTIL FINAL JUDGMENT IN CASE 31/79 .