CELEX: C2002/118/26
Language: en
Date: 2002-05-18 00:00:00
Title: 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)

18.5.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 118/17
       ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT                                  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
                       of 14 December 2001                                  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)
                                                                                                     (Case C-69/02)
(Appeal — Order of the President of the Court of First
Instance given in proceedings for interim measures —
Dumping — Decision terminating expiry review — Urgency                                              (2002/C 118/27)
— Damage of a pecuniary nature - Uncertainty as to its
 subsequent reparation by means of an action for damages)
                           (2002/C 118/26)
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                     (Language of the case: French)                         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
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      the case of Tilly Reichling against Léon Wampach; intervener:
                    in the European Court Reports)                          Etablissement d’assurances contre la vieillesse et l’invalidité on
                                                                            the following questions:
                                                                            1.   Must Article 6(3) of the Brussels Convention be interpret-
In Case C-404/01 P (R): Commission of the European Com-                          ed as meaning that an action for enforcement of a
munities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz and S. Meany, assisted by A.P.                   judicial decision, necessarily involving in accordance with
Bentley, Barrister), supported by TNC Kazchrome, established                     procedural rules under domestic law the intervention of
at Almaty (Kazakhstan), and Alloy 2000 SA, established in                        a court of law, may be regarded as an original claim based
Luxembourg (lawyers: J.E. Flynn, Barrister, J. Magnin and                        on a contract or on facts? May an original claim based on
S. Mills, Solicitors), — appeal against the order of the President               the enforcement of a judgment declaring and fixing
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of                    entitlement to maintenance be considered to be based on
1 August 2001 in Case T-132/01 R Euroalliages and Others v                       a contract or facts within the meaning of Article 6(3)?
Commission, not yet published in European Court Reports,                         May an original claim seeking enforcement of an
seeking to have that order set aside, the other parties to                       entitlement to maintenance be considered to be based on
the proceedings being Euroalliages, established in Brussels                      a contract or facts within the meaning of Article 6(3)?
(Belgium), Péchiney Electrométallurgie, established in Cour-
bevoie (France), Vargön Alloys AB, established in Vargön
(Sweden) and Ferroatlántica, established in Madrid (Spain)                 2.   Must the expression ‘arising from the same contract or
(lawyers: D. Voillemot and O. Prost, supported by Kingdom of                     facts on which the original claim was based’ in Article 6(3)
Spain (Agent: L. Fraguas Gadea) — the President of the Court                     of the Brussels Convention be considered to be more
made an order on 14 December 2001, the operative part of                         restrictive than the expression ‘related actions’ used in the
which is as follows:                                                             third paragraph of Article 22 of the Brussels Convention?
1.    The order of the President of the Court of First Instance of          3.   Where the court which is to hear and determine the
      1 August 2001 in Case T-132/01 R Euroalliages and Others                   original claim has jurisdiction under Article 16(5) of the
      v Commission is set aside.                                                 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)
2.    The case is referred back to the Court of First Instance.                  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-
3.    Costs are reserved.                                                        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?
(1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.