CELEX: 61959CO0002
Language: en
Date: 1959-01-30 00:00:00
Title: Order of the President of the Court of 30 January 1959. # Mannesmann AG and others v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community. # Case 2-59 R - Joined cases 4-59 to 13-59.

Avis juridique important

|

61959O0002

Order of the President of the Court of 30 January 1959.  -  Mannesmann AG and others v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community.  -  Case 2-59 R - Joined cases 4-59 to 13-59.  

European Court reports French edition Page 00345 Dutch edition Page 00353 German edition Page 00351 Italian edition Page 00335 English special edition Page 00162

PartiesGroundsOperative part
Parties

++++IN CASE 2/59  1 . NIEDERRHEINISCHE HUTTE AG, DUISBURG,  2 . PHOENIX-RHEINROHR AG, VEREINIGTE HUTTEN - UND ROHRENWERKE, DUSSELDORF,  3 . GUSSTAHLWERKE GELSENKIRCHEN AG, GELSENKIRCHEN,  4 . RUHRSTAHL AG, WITTEN,  5 . GUSSTAHLWERKE WITTEN AG, WITTEN,  6 . MANNESMANN AG, DUSSELDORF, ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANIES MANNESMANN HUTTENWERKE AG AND HAHNSCHE WERKE AG, RECONSTRUCTED IN THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT ABOVE AND STRUCK OFF THE TRADE REGISTER,  7 . BOCHUMER VEREIN FUR GUSSTAHLFABRIKATION AG, BOCHUM,  8 . AUGUST THYSSEN-HUTTE AG, DUISBURG-HAMBORN,  9 . STAHLWERKE BOCHUM AG, BOCHUM,  10 . HUTTENWERKE OBERHAUSEN AG, OBERHAUSEN, APPLICANTS, REPRESENTED BY WERNER VON SIMSON,  V  HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY, LUXEMBOURG, DEFENDANT, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, FRANS VAN HOUTEN, ACTING AS AGENT,  

Grounds

P . 163  THE APPLICANTS RELY UPON ARTICLE 63 ( 1 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY AND STRESS 'THE DANGER WHICH EXISTS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY'S BEGINNING ENFORCEMENT BEFORE THE UNDERTAKINGS REFERRED TO HAVE BEEN ABLE TO COMPLETE THE PREPARATION OF THEIR APPLICATION AND THUS ACQUIRE THE RIGHT TO BRING AN ACTION BEFORE THE COURT OF JUSTICE '.  HOWEVER, ARTICLE 63 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT PROVIDES THAT 'NO INTERIM APPLICATION FOR A SUSPENSION OF ENFORCEMENT REFERRED TO IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 39 OF THE TREATY CAN BE MADE UNLESS THE DECISION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY HAS BEEN CONTESTED IN AN EARLIER OR AT LEAST CONCOMITANT MAIN ACTION '.  IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOREGOING THE APPLICATION MUST BE INADMISSIBLE, BECAUSE THE APPLICANTS HAVE NOT CONTESTED THE DECISIONS IN AN EARLIER OR AT LEAST CONCOMITANT MAIN ACTION .  IT SHOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED WHETHER THE APPLICATION IS ADMISSIBLE UNDER ARTICLE 64 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT, WHICH PROVIDES THAT :  P . 164  'AN APPLICATION FOR THE SUSPENSION OF THE ENFORCEMENT OF A DECISION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY WHICH IMPOSES A PECUNIARY OBLIGATION CAN BE MADE WHEN THERE IS REASON TO FEAR THAT ENFORCEMENT WILL TAKE PLACE .'  HOWEVER, IT HAS NOT EVEN BEEN PROVED THAT THE PROCEDURE NECESSARY FOR ENFORCEMENT HAS BEEN INITIATED, SO THAT IT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED THAT THE FEAR OF SUCH MEASURES WAS JUSTIFIED . ASSUMING THAT THE APPLICATION IS BASED ON ARTICLE 64 IT IS THEREFORE ALSO INADMISSIBLE .  ARTICLE 60 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT PROVIDES THAT THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .  

Operative part

THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE  HEREBY :  1 . REJECTS THE APPLICATION AS BEING INADMISSIBLE;  2 . ORDERS THE APPLICANTS TO BEAR THE COSTS .