1 . ADMISSIBILITY I . THE APPLICATION, FOR THE BRINGING OF WHICH NO TIME-LIMIT IS PRESCRIBED, COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 77 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT . II . ARTICLE 37 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE PROVIDES THAT IF THE MEANING OR SCOPE OF A JUDGMENT IS " IN DOUBT ", THE COURT SHALL CONSTRUE IT ON APPLICATION BY ANY PARTY OR ANY INSTITUTION OF THE COMMUNITY ESTABLISHING AN INTEREST THEREIN . ARE THESE CONDITIONS FULFILLED IN THE PRESENT CASE? 1 . HAS THE APPLICANT ESTABLISHED AN INTEREST IN THE INTERPRETATION? IN ITS LETTER OF 28 FEBRUARY 1955 TO THE APPLICANT THE HIGH AUTHORITY REFERRED EXPRESSLY TO THE JUDGMENT GIVEN IN CASE 2/54 TO JUSTIFY ITS INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 30 OF THE CONVENTION ON THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS, CLAIMING THAT ITALIAN UNDERTAKINGS WITHIN THE ITALIAN MARKET MAY APPLY ONLY THEIR OWN PRICE-LIST AND MAY NOT ALIGN THEIR PRICES EITHER ON THE PRICES OF OTHER UNDERTAKINGS IN THE COMMUNITY OR EVEN ON THE PRICES OF THEIR NATIONAL COMPETITORS . P . 141 THE APPLICANT CONSIDERS THAT THE HIGH AUTHORITY WRONGLY DREW THESE CONCLUSIONS FROM THE JUDGMENT IN CASE 2/54 SINCE THE JUDGMENT WAS CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE PROTECTION OF ITALIAN UNDERTAKINGS AGAINST COMPETITION FROM NON-ITALIAN UNDERTAKINGS IN THE COMMUNITY . THE QUESTION WHICH OF THESE TWO INTERPRETATION ACCORDS WITH THE JUDGMENT IN CASE 2/54 DIRECTLY CONCERNS THE UNDERTAKINGS WHICH BELONG TO THE APPLICANT ASSOCIATION . THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION CAN BE GIVEN ONLY BY WAY OF INTERPRETATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND THE APPLICANT HAS NO OTHER MEANS OF ASCERTAINING THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION . THE APPLICANT HAS THUS ESTABLISHED ITS INTEREST IN ASKING FOR AN INTERPRETATION OF THE JUDGMENT IN QUESTION .
2 . SUBSTANCE THE COURT CONCOURS WITH THE OPINION OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL IN FINDING THAT THE GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT IN QUESTION CONTAIN NO OBSCURITIES AND THAT ACCORDINGLY THERE IS IN PRINCIPLE NOTHING TO BE INTERPRETED . IT APPEARS FROM THE FACTS SET OUT IN THE JUDGMENT IN CASE 2/54 AND REPRODUCED ABOVE THAT THE PARTIES SUBMITTED TO THE COURT ONLY THE QUESTION WHETHER ARTICLE 1 OF DECISION NO 2/54 OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY INFRINGED ARTICLE 30 OF THE CONVENTION ON THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS BECAUSE IT ALLOWED NON-ITALIAN COMMUNITY STEEL PRODUCERS TO GRANT DISCOUNTS ON THEIR PRICE-LISTS ON THE ITALIAN MARKET . IT FOLLOWS THAT THE COURT HAD BEFORE IT ONLY THE QUESTION WHETHER NON-ITALIAN STEEL PRODUCERS IN THE COMMUNITY WERE NOT ONLY PREVENTED UNDER ARTICLE 30 OF THE CONVENTION ON THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS FROM ALIGNING THEIR PRICES ON THOSE OF ITALIAN PRODUCERS BUT WERE PREVENTED GENERALLY FROM SELLING ON THE ITALIAN MARKET AT PRICES LOWER THAN THOSE SET OUT IN THEIR PRICE-LISTS . THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF NO 11 OF THE GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT, IN SECTION II, EXPLAINS THE OBJECTIVE PURSUED BY ARTICLE 30 OF THE CONVENTION ON THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS : ACCORDING TO THAT PARAGRAPH NON-ITALIAN UNDERTAKINGS MUST BE PREVENTED FROM COMPETING WITH ITALIAN UNDERTAKINGS ON THE ITALIAN MARKET BY QUOTING PRICES LOWER THAN THOSE IN THEIR PRICE-LISTS . THE FOLLOWING AND LAST PARAGRAPH OF NO 11 OF THE GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT, WHICH GIVES REASONS FOR THIS INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO ITS CONTENT AND STATES THAT NOT ONLY ALIGNMENT BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING ANY QUOTATION LOWER THAN THE PRICES CONTAINED IN THE PRICE-LISTS IS UNLAWFUL, REFERS ONLY TO THE PROTECTION OF THE ITALIAN MARKET AGAINST COMPETITION BY NON-ITALIAN UNDERTAKINGS IN THE COMMUNITY : THERE IS A CLOSE LINK BETWEEN THAT PARAGRAPH OF THE GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT AND THE EXPLANATIONS GIVEN IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH . THE HIGH AUTHORITY IS THEREFORE WRONG IN THINKING THAT IT CAN FIND IN THE JUDGMENT IN CASE 2/54 ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR ITS POSITION ON THE QUESTION WHETHER ARTICLE 30 ( 2 ) OF THE CONVENTION ON THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS ALSO PROHIBITS ALIGNMENT BY THE ITALIAN UNDERTAKINGS INTER SE OR ALIGNMENT BY ITALIAN UNDERTAKINGS ON THE PRICES OF NON-ITALIAN UNDERTAKINGS IN THE COMMUNITY . THE COURT DID NOT HAVE THIS QUESTION BEFORE IT IN CASE 2/54 AND DID NOT GIVE A DECISION ON THIS ISSUE . THE JUDGMENT IN CASE 2/54 DID NOT DECLARE THAT SUCH ALIGNMENTS WERE ALLOWED; NOR DID IT DECLARE THAT THEY WERE PROHIBITED . THIS QUESTION CANNOT THEREFORE BE ANSWERED BY MEANS OF INTERPRETATION . FOR THESE SAME REASONS THE COURT CANNOT ACCEPT THE SECOND PART OF THE REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT TO INTERPRET THE JUDGMENT IN CASE 2/54 AS MEANING THAT ARTICLE 30 ( 2 ) OF THE CONVENTION ON THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS DOES NOT PREVENT ALIGNMENT WITHIN THE ITALIAN MARKET BY THE ITALIAN UNDERTAKINGS ON THE PRICES OF OTHER ITALIAN UNDERTAKINGS OR ALIGNMENT BY THE ITALIAN UNDERTAKINGS ON THE PRICES OF OTHER NON-ITALIAN UNDERTAKINGS IN THE COMMUNITY . IN A JUDGMENT GIVING AN INTERPRETATION THE COURT CAN ONLY DEFINE THE MEANING AND SCOPE OF A PREVIOUS JUDGMENT; IT CANNOT GIVE JUDGMENT ON MATTERS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DECIDED BY THAT JUDGMENT . THE PARTIES MAY NOT, BY MEANS OF A REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION, ASK FOR A NEW DECISION ON NEW DISPUTES . P . 144 NEVERTHELESS, SINCE BOTH PARTIES HAVE EXPRESSLY STATED THAT THEY WOULD LIKE AN INTERPRETATION OF THE JUDGMENT TO WHICH THEY ATTACH DIFFERENT MEANINGS, THE COURT CONSIDERS IT APPROPRIATE TO SET OUT IN THE OPERATIVE PART BELOW THE SCOPE OF ITS JUDGMENT IN CASE 2/54 .