C-2/59
ECLI:EU:C:1959:2
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61959CO0002
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
ORDER OF 18. 5. 1960 — JOINED CASES 4 TO 13/59
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT 30 JANUARY 19591
Case No 2/59 R
In Case *
1. NIEDERRHEINISCHE HUTTE AG, Duisburg, 2. PHOENIX-RHEINROHR AG, VEREINIGTE HÜTTEN- UND ROHRENWERKE, Düs seldorf, 3. GUßSTAHLWERKE GELSENKIRCHEN AG, Gelsenkirchen, 4. RUHRSTAHL AG, Witten, 5. GUßSTAHLWERKE WITTEN AG, Witten, 6. MANNESMANN AG, Düsseldorf, on behalf of the companies Mannesmann Hüttenwerke AG and Hahnsche Werke AG, reconstructed in the name of the applicant above and struck off the trade register, 7. BOCHUMER VEREIN FÜR GUßSTAHLFABRIKATION 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 , Luxem bourg,
defendant,
represented by its Legal Adviser, Frans van Houten, acting as Agent,
The President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities makes the following
1 — Language of the Case: German. * Case 3/59 R relating to Cases 4 to 13/59
MANNESMANN v HIGH AUTHORITY
ORDER
Facts
By their statement of case of 27 January The parties were duly summoned and ap 1959 the applicants claimed that the Court peared at the hearing on 30 January to hear should make an interim order granting a the decision on the case. suspension of the operation of the decisions of the High Authority which were annexed On the other hand, the Agent of the High to the application. Those decisions are ad Authority contends that the Court should dressed separately and individually to each dismiss the application and order the appli of the applicants. They enjoin them to pay cants to pay the costs of the proceedings. He a certain amount to the Imported Ferrous gives the following reasons for his conclu Scrap Equalization Fund by 31 January sions: 1959 at the latest. Under Article 92 of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and 'Until now, the High Authority has not ini Steel Community the decisions are en tiated the measures of enforcement and it forceable. does not intend to initiate them before the time-limit has expired. Moreover, the pre Furthermore, the applicants declared 'that paratory procedure for such measures re they intend to bring an action for the annul quires such a long period that there is no ment of the decisions' and 'that the period reason to fear measures of enforcement un of time allowed for bringing an action der Article 92 of the Treaty.' against the said decisions will expire on 15 February 1959'. The applicants maintain their conclusions.
Law
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 re ferred 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 in terim application for a suspension of enforcement referred to in the second par agraph of Article 39 of the Treaty can be made unless the decision or recommen dation of the High Authority has been conested in an earlier or at least concom itant 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:
ORDER OF 18.5.1960 — JOINED CASES 4 TO 13/59
'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 enforce ment has been initiated, so that it cannot be accepted that the fear of such mea sures 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.
On those grounds,
Having regard to Articles 39 and 92 of the Treaty establishing the European coal and Steel Community, Article 33 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Coal and Steel Community and Articles 60,63 and 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court,
The President of the Court of Justice
hereby:
1. Rejects the application as being inadmissible; 2. Orders the applicants to bear the costs.
Luxembourg, 30 January 1959.
H. J. Eversen A. M. Donner
Acting Registar President