ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
8

Article 20 of that directive, the only provision in Chapter III thereof, is entitled ‘Reduction or withdrawal of material reception conditions’. That article is worded as follows: ‘1. Member States may reduce or, in exceptional and duly justified cases, withdraw material reception conditions where an applicant: (a) abandons the place of residence determined by the competent authority without informing it or, if requested, without permission; or (b) does not comply with reporting duties or with requests to provide information or to appear for personal interviews concerning the asylum procedure during a reasonable period laid down in national law; or (c) has lodged a subsequent application as defined in Article 2(q) of Directive 2013/32/EU [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60)]. In relation to cases (a) and (b), when the applicant is traced or voluntarily reports to the competent authority, a duly motivated decision, based on the reasons for the disappearance, shall be taken on the reinstallation of the grant of some or all of the material reception conditions withdrawn or reduced. 2. Member States may also reduce material reception conditions when they can establish that the applicant, for no justifiable reason, has not lodged an application for international protection as soon as reasonably practicable after arrival in that Member State. 3. Member States may reduce or withdraw material reception conditions where an applicant has concealed financial resources, and has therefore unduly benefited from material reception conditions. 4. Member States may determine sanctions applicable to serious breaches of the rules of the accommodation centres as well as to seriously violent behaviour. 5. Decisions for reduction or withdrawal of material reception conditions or sanctions referred to in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of this Article shall be taken individually, objectively and impartially and reasons shall be given. Decisions shall be based on the particular situation of the person concerned, especially with regard to persons covered by Article 21, taking into account the principle of proportionality. Member States shall under all circumstances ensure access to health care in accordance with Article 19 and shall ensure a dignified standard of living for all applicants. 6. Member States shall ensure that material reception conditions are not withdrawn or reduced before a decision is taken in accordance with paragraph 5.’
22

In those circumstances the High Court (Ireland) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Does the concept of “claim” in [Article] 81 of [Regulation No] 883/2004 include the ongoing state of being in receipt of a periodic benefit from a first Member State (where the benefit is correctly payable by a second Member State) on each and every occasion on which such benefit is paid, even after the original application and the original decision by the first Member State to grant the benefit? (2) If the answer to the first question is yes, then in circumstances where a claim for social security is made incorrectly to a Member State of origin, when it should have been made to a second Member State, is the obligation of the second Member State pursuant to [Article] 81 of [Regulation No] 883/2004 (specifically, the obligation to treat a claim to the Member State of origin as being admissible in the second Member State) to be interpreted as being entirely independent of the applicant’s obligation to give correct information regarding her place of residence pursuant to [Article] 76(4) of [Regulation No] 883/2004, such that a claim made incorrectly to the Member State of origin must be accepted as admissible by the second Member State for the purposes of [Article] 81, notwithstanding the failure of the applicant to provide correct information as to her place of residence in accordance with [Article] 76(4) [of that regulation], within the period for making a claim prescribed by the law of the second Member State? (3) [Does] the general EU law principle of effectiveness [have] the consequence that access to EU law rights is rendered ineffective in circumstances such as those in the present proceedings (in particular, in circumstances where the EU national exercising free movement rights is in breach of her obligation under [Article] 76(4) to notify the social welfare authorities of the Member State of origin of her change of country of residence) by a requirement of national law in the Member State in which the right of free movement is exercised that in order to obtain a backdating of claims for child benefit an EU national must apply for such a benefit in the second Member State within a period of twelve months prescribed by the domestic law of the latter Member State?’
14

Article 18 of legge n. 115 – Disposizioni per l’adempimento degli obblighi derivanti dall’appartenenza dell’Italia all’Unione europea – Legge europea 2014 (Law No 115 on provisions to comply with the obligations arising from Italy’s membership of the European Union – European Law 2014), of 29 July 2015 (GURI No 178 of 3 August 2015, p. 1), provides: ‘1. From 1 January 2016, citizens of the European Union … who are or have been affiliated to the compulsory general invalidity, old-age and survivors’ insurance scheme for employed persons … shall have the possibility of aggregating periods of insurance completed under those insurance schemes with periods of insurance completed with international organisations. 2. The aggregation referred to in paragraph 1 may be requested, where this is necessary to obtain entitlement to an old-age, invalidity or survivor’s pension, provided that the total duration of the periods of insurance completed under Italian legislation is at least 52 weeks and that the periods to be aggregated do not overlap. 3. The aggregation of periods of insurance may be made at the request of the person concerned, which request shall be submitted to the Italian social security institution with which he or she completed periods of insurance. Where a former employee of an international organisation acquires the right to benefits provided for under Italian legislation without there being any need to aggregate the periods of insurance completed with the international organisation, the Italian social security institution shall calculate the pension exclusively on the basis of periods of insurance completed under the Italian pension scheme. Where a former employee of an international organisation acquires the right to benefits provided for under Italian legislation only by aggregating periods of insurance completed with the international organisation, the Italian social security institution shall take into account periods of insurance completed under the pension scheme of the international organisation – with the exception of those which have been reimbursed – as though they had been completed under Italian legislation, and shall calculate the amount of the benefit exclusively on the basis of periods of insurance completed under Italian legislation. 4. Retirement benefits payable in accordance with this Article shall be treated as pensions for all purposes arising from the application of Italian legislation. 5. Periods of employment with an international organisation may, in so far as they do not give rise to entitlement to a retirement benefit payable by the pension fund of that international organisation, be purchased under the Italian pension scheme in accordance with the legislation governing the purchase of periods of employment completed abroad. The right to purchase shall be exercised, inter alia by the survivors of the employee of the international organisation, under the conditions laid down by the rules of the Italian social security institution from which the purchase is sought. …’
Order of the Court of 24 November 1955. - Groupement des Industries Sidérurgiques Luxembourgeoises v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community. - Joined cases 7-54 and 9-54.



European Court reports

French edition Page 00145

Dutch edition Page 00153

German edition Page 00143

Italian edition Page 00141

English special edition Page 00222



Parties

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

++++

HAVING REGARD TO THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE LUXEMBOURG GOVERNMENT ON 30 SEPTEMBER 1955 TO INTERVENE IN THE ACTIONS PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

BETWEEN

GROUPEMENT DES INDUSTRIES SIDERURGIQUES LUXEMBOURGEOISES

AND

HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY

( JOINED CASES 7 AND 9/54 );

Grounds

HAVING REGARD TO THE WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS SUBMITTED ON 24 OCTOBER 1955 BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY, THE DEFENDANT IN THE MAIN ACTION;

HAVING REGARD TO THE WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS SUBMITTED ON THE SAME DATE BY THE GROUPEMENT DES INDUSTRIES SIDERURGIQUES LUXEMBOURGEOISES, THE APPLICANT IN THE MAIN ACTION;

UPON HEARING THE PARTIES;

UPON HEARING THE OPINION OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL;

WHEREAS THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 34 OF THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ECSC PROVIDES THAT NATURAL OR LEGAL PERSONS ESTABLISHING AN INTEREST IN THE RESULT OF ANY CASE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT MAY INTERVENE IN THAT CASE;

WHEREAS THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED ARTICLE SPECIFIES THAT SUBMISSIONS MADE IN AN APPLICATION TO INTERVENE SHALL BE LIMITED TO SUPPORTING OR REQUESTING THE REJECTION OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF ONE OF THE PARTIES;

WHEREAS THE INTEREST OF THE LUXEMBOURG GOVERNMENT IN INTERVENING IN THE CASE IS INCONTESTABLE AND HAS NOT BEEN CONTESTED;

WHEREAS THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE APPLICATION TO INTERVENE REQUEST ONLY THAT THE APPLICATION LODGED BY THE GROUPEMENT DES INDUSTRIES SIDERURGIQUES LUXEMBOURGEOISES SHOULD BE DISMISSED AND FOR THAT REASON COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 34 OF THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ECSC;

Operative part

THE COURT

COMPOSED OF : M . PILOTTI, PRESIDENT, L . DELVAUX AND A . VAN KLEFFENS ( PRESIDENTS OF CHAMBERS ), P.J.S . SERRARENS, O . RIESE, J . RUEFF, CH.L . HAMMES, JUDGES,

ADVOCATE GENERAL : K . ROEMER

REGISTRAR : A . VAN HOUTTE

HEREBY ORDERS :

THE LUXEMBOURG GOVERNMENT IS GIVEN LEAVE TO INTERVENE .

THE EXAMINATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS AND ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD IN THE APPLICATION TO INTERVENE AND OF THEIR ADMISSIBILITY IS RESERVED FOR THE FINAL JUDGMENT .

THE COSTS ARE RESERVED .
Order of the Court of 3 May 1961. - "Geitling" Ruhrkohlen-Verkaufsgesellschaft mbH and others v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community. - Case 13/60.



European Court reports

French edition Page 00267

Dutch edition Page 00283

German edition Page 00285

Italian edition Page 00264

English special edition Page 00143



Parties

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

++++

HAVING REGARD TO THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE LAND OF NORTH RHINE - WESTPHALIA ON 20 APRIL 1961 TO INTERVENE IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

( 1 ) 'GEITLING' RUHRKOHLEN-VERKAUFSGESELLSCHAFT MBH, ESSEN,

( 2 ) 'MAUSEGATT' RUHRKOHLEN-VERKAUFSGESELLSCHAFT MBH, ESSEN,

( 3 ) 'PRASIDENT' RUHRKOHLEN-VERKAUFSGESELLSCHAFT MBH, ESSEN,

( 4 ) THE MINING COMPANIES OF THE RUHR BASIN, GROUPED INTO AND REPRESENTED BY THE ABOVE THREE MARKETING COMPANIES,

V

HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY,

Grounds

HAVING REGARD TO THE WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE PARTIES TO THE ORIGINAL CASE;

WHEREAS THE GOVERNMENT OF THE LAND OF NORTH RHINE-WESTPHALIA CLAIMS THAT IT HAS AN INTEREST IN THE RESULT OF THE ORIGINAL CASE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT AND SUBSTANTIATES ITS CLAIM WITH A PERTINENT STATEMENT OF THE REASONS GIVING RISE TO THAT INTEREST;

WHEREAS THE LAND OF NORTH RHINE-WESTPHALIA HAS ADEQUATELY SUBSTANTIATED ITS INTEREST IN INTERVENING IN THE SAID CASE;

WHEREAS, MOREOVER, THE SAID INTEREST IS NOT CONTESTED BY THE PARTIES TO THE ORIGINAL CASE;

Operative part

THE COURT

COMPOSED OF : A . M . DONNER, PRESIDENT, CH . L . HAMMES AND N . CATALANO ( PRESIDENTS OF CHAMBERS ), O . RIESE, L . DELVAUX, J . RUEFF ( RAPPORTEUR ), AND R . ROSSI, JUDGES,

ADVOCATE-GENERAL : K . ROEMER

REGISTRAR : A . VAN HOUTTE

HEREBY ORDERS :

1 . THAT THE LAND OF NORTH RHINE-WESTPHALIA BE ALLOWED TO INTERVENE;

2 . THAT COPIES OF ALL PROCEDURAL DOCUMENTS BE SERVED BY THE REGISTRAR ON THE INTERVENER;

3 . THAT THE COSTS BE RESERVED .
Order of the Court of 25 June 1964. - Alfred Toepfer and Getreide-Import Gesellschaft v Commission of the EEC. - Joined cases 106 and 107-63.



European Court reports

French edition Page 00553

Dutch edition Page 00538

German edition Page 00578

Italian edition Page 00525

English special edition Page 00429

Danish special edition Page 00087

Portuguese special edition Page 00141

Spanish special edition Page 00231



Parties

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

++++

IN JOINED CASES

106/63

ALFRED TOEPFER, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, WHOSE REGISTERED OFFICE IS AT HAMBURG, REPRESENTED BY AUGUST SCHULZ, ITS SPECIAL COMMERCIAL AGENT,

AND 107/63

GETREIDE-IMPORT GESELLSCHAFT, A LIMITED COMPANY, WHOSE REGISTERED OFFICE IS AT DUISBURG, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGERS WILHELM SPECHT AND WILHELM BREDER, ASSISTED BY WALTER HEMPEL OF THE HAMBURG BAR AND MR REDEKER OF THE BONN BAR ( FOR CASE 107/63 ONLY ), BOTH WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF GEORGES REUTER, AVOCAT-AVOUE, 7 AVENUE DE L ' ARSENAL,

APPLICANTS,

V

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY, REPRESENTED BY CLAUS-DIETER EHLERMANN, A MEMBER OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE EUROPEAN EXECUTIVES, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICES OF HENRI MANZANARES, SECRETARY OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE EUROPEAN EXECUTIVES, 2 PLACE DE METZ,

DEFENDANT,

Grounds

WHEREAS IN ITS APPLICATION LODGED ON 21 FEBRUARY 1964 THE DEFENDANT REQUESTED THE COURT TO DECIDE ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF APPLICATIONS 106/63 AND 107/63 AS A PRELIMINARY POINT, TO DISMISS THE PRINCIPAL APPLICATIONS AS INADMISSIBLE AND TO ORDER THE APPLICANTS TO BEAR THE COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS;

WHEREAS IN ITS STATEMENT IN REPLY LODGED ON 13 APRIL 1964 THE APPLICANTS REQUESTED THE COURT TO DISMISS THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE DEFENDANT FOR A PRELIMINARY DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE PRINCIPAL APPLICATIONS OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO RESERVE ITS DECISION FOR THE FINAL JUDGMENT;

WHEREAS THE ORAL PROCEDURE CONCERNING THE OBJECTION OF INADMISSIBILITY TOOK PLACE ON 28 MAY 1964;

WHEREAS THE ADVOCATE-GENERAL, IN HIS OPINION DELIVERED ON 11 JUNE 1964, SUGGESTED TO THE COURT THAT IT SHOULD NOT GIVE JUDGMENT ON THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE DEFENDANT UNTIL AFTER THE PROCEDURE RELATING TO SUBSTANCE HAD BEEN COMPLETED;

WHEREAS AT THIS STAGE IN THE PROCEEDINGS IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE TO FOLLOW THIS SUGGESTION BECAUSE THE ELEMENTS OF THE PROBLEM OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE PRINCIPAL APPLICATIONS APPEAR TO BE INTERRELATED WITH THOSE FOR WHICH AN EVALUATION IS NECESSARY WHEN THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE IS EXAMINED;

Operative part

1 . THE DECISION ON THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE DEFENDANT IS RESERVED FOR THE FINAL JUDGMENT;

2 . THE COSTS ARE RESERVED .
Order of the Court of 16 June 1965. - Grundig-Verkaufs GmbH v Commission of the EEC. - Case 58-64.



European Court reports

French edition Page 00559

Dutch edition Page 00575

German edition Page 00453

Italian edition Page 00575

English special edition Page 00385



Parties

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

++++

IN CASE 58/64

GRUNDIG-VERKAUFS-GMBH, THE REGISTERED OFFICE OF WHICH IS AT FUERTH ( BAVARIA ),

APPLICANT,

V

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY,

DEFENDANT,

Grounds

WHEREAS UNDER ARTICLE 37(2 ) OF THE STATUTE OF THE COURT ANNEXED TO THE EEC TREATY ANY PERSON ESTABLISHING AN INTEREST IN THE RESULT OF ANY CASE HAS THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN THAT CASE;

WHEREAS THE INTEREST NECESSARY IN THIS RESPECT MUST NOT RELATE SIMPLY TO ABSTRACT LEGAL ARGUMENTS BUT TO THE ACTUAL CONCLUSIONS OF A PARTY TO THE MAIN ACTION;

WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CONTESTED DECISION IN RELATION TO THE OUTCOME OF THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE FRENCH COURT BETWEEN UNEF AND CONSTEN, THE ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE DEFENDANT CANNOT FAIL TO EXERCISE A DECISIVE INFLUENCE ON THE OUTCOME OF THE ABOVEMENTIONED CASE;

WHEREAS THEREFORE THE POSITION OF THE APPLICANT IN RELATION TO THE OUTCOME OF THE PRESENT CASE IS SUCH AS TO ESTABLISH ITS INTEREST IN INTERVENING IN SUPPORT OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE DEFENDANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 37(2 ) OF THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EEC;

WHEREAS IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE APPLICATION TO INTERVENE MUST SUCCEED;

Operative part

1 . THE UNEF COMPANY IS AUTHORIZED TO INTERVENE IN CASE 58/64 . A TIME-LIMIT SHALL BE FIXED FOR THE LODGING OF THE INTERVENER'S WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE DEFENDANT;

2 . A COPY OF EACH PLEADING SHALL BE SERVED ON THE INTERVENER BY THE REGISTRAR;

3 . THE COSTS ARE RESERVED .
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 March 1966. - Hans Dieter Mosthaf v Commission of the EAEC. - Case 34-65.



European Court reports

French edition Page 00783

Dutch edition Page 00777

German edition Page 00813

Italian edition Page 00731

English special edition Page 00541



Parties

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

++++

IN CASE 34/65

HANS DIETER MOSTHAF, AN OFFICIAL OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EAEC,

APPLICANT,

V

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY,

DEFENDANT,

Grounds

WHEREAS BY LETTER OF 15 FEBRUARY 1966 THE APPLICANT HAS CLAIMED ON THE BASIS OF ARTICLE 42(2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THAT THAT PART OF THE REJOINDER WHICH CONCERNS THE DEFINITION OF THE DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE APPLICANT IS INADMISSIBLE ON THE GROUND THAT THE DEFENDANT IS THEREBY DEFINING ITS POSITION FOR THE FIRST TIME ON THE ARGUMENTS SET OUT IN THE APPLICATION;

WHEREAS, BY THE DEFINITION OF THE DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE APPLICANT SET OUT IN THE REJOINDER THE DEFENDANT CONTESTS THE DEFINITION OF THESE DUTIES AND POWERS ALREADY SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT;

WHEREAS THIS STATEMENT BY THE DEFENDANT THEREFORE CONSTITUTES A MERE DENIAL, TO WHICH THE PROHIBITION CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 42(2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE CANNOT APPLY;

WHEREAS THE APPLICANT IN THE ALTERNATIVE REQUESTS PERMISSION TO SUBMIT HIS WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS WITH REGARD TO THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT;

WHEREAS, HOWEVER, FOR THE REASONS SET OUT ABOVE THERE IS NO OCCASION TO PROLONG THE WRITTEN PROCEDURE, SINCE THE PROVISION IN THE SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 42(2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS INSTANCE;

WHEREAS, MOREOVER, EACH PARTY IS AT LIBERTY TO DEVELOP DURING THE ORAL PROCEDURE ANY ARGUMENTS WHICH IT THINKS EXPEDIENT;

Operative part

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IS DISMISSED .
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 January 1970. - Andreas Reinarz v Commission of the European Communities. - Case 17-68.



European Court reports 1970 Page 00001



Parties

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

++++

IN CASE 17/68 - COSTS

ANDREAS REINARZ

V

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Grounds

WHEREAS THE APPLICANT ASKS THE COURT TO DECLARE, IN INTERPRETATION OF ITS ORDER OF 17 SEPTEMBER 1969, THAT THE COSTS TO BE RECOVERED BY THE APPLICANT SHALL INCLUDE THE SUM OF .... FRANCS BY WAY OF COUNCIL' S FEES, EXCLUDING THE COSTS WHICH MUST BE CONSIDERED TO BE PAYABLE IN ADDITION;

WHEREAS THE ONLY OBJECT OF THE TAXATION OF COSTS TO BE RECOVERED UNDER ARTICLE 74 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE IS TO DETERMINE, IF NECESSARY, THE AMOUNT OF THE COSTS AND FEES WHICH, HAVING REGARD TO ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE, MUST BE BORNE BY THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY BY WAY OF COSTS TO BE RECOVERED;

WHEREAS THE TERMS OF THE ORDER OF 17 SEPTEMBER 1969 STATE CLEARLY THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE COSTS TO BE RECOVERED OUT OF THE ENTIRE COSTS INCURRED BY THE APPLICANT SHALL BE ..... FRANCS;

WHEREAS IT IS THEREFORE UNNECESSARY TO INTERPRET THE SAID ORDER,

ON THOSE GROUNDS,

Operative part

THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER )

COMPOSED OF : R . MONACO, PRESIDENT, A . M . DONNER AND J . MERTENS DE WILMARS, JUDGES,

ADVOCATE-GENERAL : K . ROEMER

REGISTRAR : A . VAN HOUTTE

HEREBY ORDERS :

THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED .
Order of the President of the Court of 3 April 1974. - Kali-Chemie-Aktiengesellschaft v Commission of the European Communities. - Case 20-74 R.



European Court reports 1974 Page 00337



Parties

Grounds

Decision on costs

Operative part



Parties

++++

IN CASE 20/74 R

KALI-CHEMIE AG, A COMPANY GOVERNED BY GERMAN LAW, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE IN HANOVER D 3000, AT 20, HANS-BOECKLER-ALLEE, REPRESENTED BY PHILIP VON BISMARCK AND OTHERS, ITS DIRECTORS, ASSISTED BY ROLF C . GALLER, JOACHIM MEYER-LANDRUT AND FRITZ GEORG MILLER, ALL OF THE DUESSELDORF BAR, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF JACQUES LOESCH, 2, RUE GOETHE, APPLICANT,

V

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, ROLF WAEGENBAUR, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF PIERRE LAMOUREUX, LEGAL ADVISER, 4, BOULEVARD ROYAL, DEFENDANT,

Grounds

1 THE FUTURE OF KC COULD BE IRREPARABLY DAMAGED IF THE DECISION TAKEN WAS IMMEDIATELY PUT INTO EFFECT, SINCE THERE IS NO READY SAFEGUARD AGAINST THE RISKS INVOLVED FOR THE EXPLOITATION OF THE MINE AND THOSE RELATING TO THE HURRIED RECONVERSION OF THE UNDERTAKING .

2 IT SEEMS PROBABLE THAT SUCH A RECONVERSION WOULD BE IRREVERSIBLE .

3 BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITIES OFFERED BY THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT THE SETTLEMENT OF THE MAIN ACTION CAN BE EXPECTED TO TAKE PLACE WITHIN A SHORT TIME .

Decision on costs

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

Operative part

THE PRESIDENT

AS AN INTERIM RULING,

ORDERS

1 . THE OPERATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION OF 21 DECEMBER 1973 ( IV/795-OJEC OF 23 JANUARY 1974 ) IS SUSPENDED UNTIL 15 JULY .

2 . THE COSTS ARE RESERVED .
Order of the Court of 10 November 1977. - Hellmut Stimming KG v Commission of the European Communities. - Case 90-77.



European Court reports 1977 Page 02113



Parties

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

IN CASE 90/77 ,

HELLMUT STIMMING KG , WITTEN ,

APPLICANT ,

V COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ,

DEFENDANT ,

Grounds

1 BY AN APPLICATION LODGED ON 21 JULY 1977 , THE APPLICANT BROUGHT AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES ' AGAINST THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ' .

2 IN ITS REPLY IN THAT CASE , THE APPLICANT PURPORTS TO ' EXTEND ' ITS ACTION AND BRING IT ALSO AGAINST THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES .

3 THE RULES OF PROCEDURE DO NOT ALLOW SUCH AN ALTERATION IN THE PERSON OF THE DEFENDANT .

4 ACCORDINGLY , THE REPLY IS TO BE ACCEPTED ONLY AS A PLEADING IN THE PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE COMMISSION , BUT CANNOT BE REGARDED AS COMMENCING AN ACTION AGAINST THE COUNCIL .

Operative part

THE COURT

HEREBY :

ORDERS THE REGISTRAR NOT TO SERVE ON THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES THE REPLY LODGED ON 7 NOVEMBER 1977 .