THE DEFENDANT CONSIDERS THAT THERE IS NO DANGER OF CAUSING SUCH DAMAGE OR ANY APPRECIABLE DAMAGE WHATEVER SINCE THE TREATY PROVIDES THAT IT SHALL NOT DISCLOSE THE INFORMATION OBTAINED AND SHALL OBSERVE PROFESSIONAL SECRECY ON ALL MATTERS WHICH, AS REGARDS UNDERTAKINGS, ARE COVERED BY THIS SAFEGUARD .
THE PARTIES WERE DULY SUMMONED AND APPEARED ON 26 JUNE 1959 TO PRESENT ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE THE COURT .
THEY ADHERED TO THEIR CONCLUSIONS .
LAW
BOTH IN THEIR STATEMENTS AND IN THE PLEADINGS THE PARTIES DISCUSSED IN PARTICULAR THE QUESTION WHETHER THERE IS A PRESUMPTION THAT THE REQUEST IN THE MAIN ACTION IS JUSTIFIED ( FUMUS BONI JURIS ).
THIS QUESTION MAY ONLY BE RESOLVED IF IT IS SHOWN THAT SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRE THE SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF THE CONTESTED DECISION AND, IN PARTICULAR IF ITS IMPLEMENTATION WOULD RESULT IN IRREPARABLE OR AT LEAST SERIOUS DAMAGE .
THE APPLICANT MAINTAINS THAT THE RISK OF IRREPARABLE MATERIAL DAMAGE LIES IN THE FACT THAT IF, IN GIVING JUDGMENT IN THE MAIN ACTION, THE COURT FOUND THAT THE INSPECTION ORDERED WAS IRREGULAR, THE INFORMATION THUS OBTAINED WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY THE OBLIGATION OF PROFESSIONAL SECRECY LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 47 OF THE TREATY
P . 100
THIS ARGUMENT IS INADMISSIBLE, SINCE THE OBLIGATION CONTAINED IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 47 OF THE TREATY, WHICH APPLIES TO INFORMATION LAWFULLY OBTAINED, APPLIES A FORTIORI TO INFORMATION OBTAINED UNLAWFULLY .
THE APPLICANT FURTHER ALLEGES THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONTESTED DECISION IS LIKELY TO CAUSE IT NON-MATERIAL DAMAGE SINCE, ONCE THE INFORMATION IS OBTAINED, THE APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT WILL BECOME PURPOSELESS .
THIS ARGUMENT MUST ALSO BE DISMISSED . IN FACT, EVEN IF THE HIGH AUTHORITY OBTAINED THE INFORMATION REFERRED TO, THE COURT WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED TO SETTLE THE VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION WHETHER THE HIGH AUTHORITY IS LEGALLY JUSTIFIED IN REQUESTING SUCH INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT .
THE APPLICANT MAINTAINS THAT THE HIGH AUTHORITY HAS NO DIRECT AND URGENT INTEREST IN MAKING THIS INSPECTION .
THE HIGH AUTHORITY DISPUTES THIS STATEMENT .
HOWEVER, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO CONSIDER THIS POINT SINCE UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 39 OF THE TREATY IT IS FOR THE PARTY WHICH REQUESTS THE SUSPENSION TO SHOW THAT A REFUSAL TO GRANT IT WOULD CAUSE HIM SERIOUS DAMAGE AND THIS HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN IN THIS INSTANCE .
THE APPLICATION FOR SUSPENSION MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED .
Operative part
THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
HEREBY ORDERS :
1 . THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED;
2 . THE COSTS ARE RESERVED .