Order of the President of the Court of 14 December 2001 in Case C-404/01 P (R): Commission of the European Communities v Euroalliages and Others (Appeal — Order of the President of the Court of First Instance given in proceedings for interim measures — Dumping — Decision terminating expiry review — Urgency — Damage of a pecuniary nature — Uncertainty as to its subsequent reparation by means of an action for damages)
Date: 2002-05-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, General Court (EU), action for annulment, damages, dumping, import, metallurgical industry

18.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 118/17

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT

of 14 December 2001

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
Paix, Luxembourg, by judgment of that court of 28 Febru-
ary 2002 in the case of Tilly Reichling against Léon
Wampach; intervener: Etablissement d’assurances contre
la vieillesse et l’invalidité

in Case C-404/01 P (R): Commission of the European
Communities v Euroalliages and Others (1)

(Appeal — Order of the President of the Court of First
Instance given in proceedings for interim measures —
Dumping — Decision terminating expiry review — Urgency
— Damage of a pecuniary nature - Uncertainty as to its
subsequent reparation by means of an action for damages)

(2002/C 118/26)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

J.E. Flynn, Barrister,

In Case C-404/01 P (R): Commission of the European Com-
munities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz and S. Meany, assisted by A.P.
Bentley, Barrister), supported by TNC Kazchrome, established
at Almaty (Kazakhstan), and Alloy 2000 SA, established in
Luxembourg (lawyers:
J. Magnin and
S. Mills, Solicitors), — appeal against the order of the President
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of
1 August 2001 in Case T-132/01 R Euroalliages and Others v
Commission, not yet published in European Court Reports,
seeking to have that order set aside, the other parties to
the proceedings being Euroalliages, established in Brussels
(Belgium), Péchiney Electrométallurgie, established in Cour-
bevoie (France), Vargön Alloys AB, established in Vargön
(Sweden) and Ferroatla´ntica, established in Madrid (Spain)
(lawyers: D. Voillemot and O. Prost, supported by Kingdom of
Spain (Agent: L. Fraguas Gadea) — the President of the Court
made an order on 14 December 2001, the operative part of
which is as follows:

1.

2.

3.

The order of the President of the Court of First Instance of
1 August 2001 in Case T-132/01 R Euroalliages and Others
v Commission is set aside.

The case is referred back to the Court of First Instance.

Costs are reserved.

(1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.

(Case C-69/02)

(2002/C 118/27)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de Paix,
Luxembourg, of 28 February 2002, which was received at the
Court Registry on 1 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Tilly Reichling against Léon Wampach; intervener:
Etablissement d’assurances contre la vieillesse et l’invalidité on
the following questions:

1. Must Article 6(3) of the Brussels Convention be interpret-
ed as meaning that an action for enforcement of a
judicial decision, necessarily involving in accordance with
procedural rules under domestic law the intervention of
a court of law, may be regarded as an original claim based
on a contract or on facts? May an original claim based on
the enforcement of a judgment declaring and fixing
entitlement to maintenance be considered to be based on
a contract or facts within the meaning of Article 6(3)?
May an original claim seeking enforcement of an
entitlement to maintenance be considered to be based on
a contract or facts within the meaning of Article 6(3)?

2. Must the expression ‘arising from the same contract or
facts on which the original claim was based’ in Article 6(3)
of the Brussels Convention be considered to be more
restrictive than the expression ‘related actions’ used in the
third paragraph of Article 22 of the Brussels Convention?

3. Where the court which is to hear and determine the
original claim has jurisdiction under Article 16(5) of the
Brussels Convention without that original claim requiring
that court to adjudicate on the substance of the relation-
ship between the parties to the dispute, does Article 6(3)
of
the Brussels Convention make it possible for a
defendant to bring before that court a counter-claim
concerning the legal substance, whereas if it had submit-
ted that claim by way of an independent action, it would
have fallen, under the terms of the Brussels Convention,
within the jurisdiction of the courts of another Con-
tracting State?