C-25/59

4. Infringement of the right to be heard C — Final outcome As far as the Netherlands Government was concerned, there was no question of consid­ Thus, the decision is in every respect with­ ering or criticizing the adoption of the other out foundation. measures which were referred to in the let­ ter of 12 August and which were the only There is, in consequence, no need to con­ ones repeated later in the decision of 18 sider the other arguments of the parties or February 1959; once it had made its choice to decide whether the interpretation of the there was no longer any reason for comply­ Treaty which the High Authority considers ing with the other measures. to be necessary is well founded. I am fully aware that this does not in any way resolve Although, after that date, the High Author­ the important legal and economic question ity, without getting in touch with the Gov­ whether, in order to comply with the provi­ ernments, under pressure from one of those sions of the Treaty on the subject of prices Governments and a private association and (Article 60 (2) (b)), the States are bound to as the result of re-consideration on its own apply tariffs to the carriage of goods by road part, abandoned the earlier interpretation and publish them. which the Netherlands Government was prepared to accept and on the basis of its If the High Authority considers that the re­ new standpoint took a decision on the legal gulations which it proposes ought to be ap­ position within the meaning of Article 88, plied, it can utilize the procedure in Article there is justification for the complaint that 88 in accordance with the rules to which I it failed to fulfil procedural requirements: have referred. contrary to its obligations, it neglected to give the Netherlands Government the op­ Finally, I recommend that the Court should portunity to comment on the High Author­ uphold the application of the Government ity's new concept. However unfortunate of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, declare the consequences (repetition of the proce­ the High Authority's decision null and dure and loss of time) may be for the High void, and order the latter to bear the costs, Authority and for the Community and including the costs of the interveners.

v

High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community

defendant,

Application to intervene made on 9 November 1959 by

1. COOPERATIEVE VERVOERSONDERNEMING INTERLIMBURG CA, Venlo, repre­ sented by its board, composed of F.G. van der Ven, President, G.W. Helmes, Vice-President and F. Faessen, Member,

2. REINHOLD COUMANS, proprietor of R. Coumans' Transportbedrijf, Geleen,

Having regard to the written observations and conclusions lodged on 27 Novem­ ber 1959 by the High Authority, the defendant in the main action, in which it con­ tends that the intervention should not be allowed;

On 4 December 1959, the parties applying to intervene lodged a reply to the ob­ servations of the defendant in the original case.

However, Article 93 (3) of the rules of Procedure of the Court provides that, after the application has been served on the parties to the original case, only they shall be given an opportunity to submit their written or oral observations.

ORDER OF 19.2.1960 —CASE 20/59

In the circumstances, the reply lodged on their own authority by the parties ap­ plying to intervene is out of order and cannot be the subject of argument.

Upon hearing the parties; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; The applicants seek to intervene in the proceedings instituted by the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, in which the latter seeks annulment of De­ cision No 18/59 of the High Authority of 18 February 1959, published in the Jour­ nal Officiel of 7 March 1959;

The present proceedings are concerned with the annulment of a complex decision.

The contested decision in the main action, firstly, records the failure of the Gov­ ernment of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to fulfil an obligation under the ECSC Treaty and, secondly, prescribes the measures necessary for the fulfilment of that obligation.

NETHERLANDS v HIGH AUTHORITY

It is necessary to ascertain precisely which provision the interveners have an in­ terest in having annulled.

Although undertakings having an interest can be allowed to intervene in a dispute arising under Article 88, such intervention can, however, be for the sole purpose of obtaining an interpretation of the Treaty, to the exclusion of any consideration of determination of the time-limit which the High Authority can set that State for the fulfilment of its obligations or the detailed rules for the application of any res­ trictive decision by the Authority against that State since, in these various cases, the very nature of these acts, which take place at the level of the relationship be­ tween States, public authorities and the High Authority as the Community agen­ cy, precludes the intervention of private persons; and argument on these issues must, therefore, be conducted exclusively between the main parties.

In consequence, the applicants' intervention in the present case can only be for the purpose of supporting the conclusion of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that Decision No 18/59 be declared null and void in that the de­

hereby:

1. Allows the intervention of Coöperative Vervoersonderneming InterLimburg GA Venlo; Reinhold Coumans, proprietor of R. Coumans' Transportbedrijf, Geleen; Ven­ nootschap onder Firma M. Overdorp en Zoon, Velsen-IJmulden O.;

Rotterdamsche Droogdokmaatschappij N.V., Rotterdam, Vereniging van Metaal-Industrieen, The Hague;

2. Limits the conclusions of the interveners to supporting the conclusions of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that Decision No 18/59 of 18 February 1959, published in the Journal Officiel of 7 March 1959 be declared null and void in that the decision records a failure of that Government in its duty to make regulations to be applied to carriage by road and in that it lays down ways and means of so doing.

3. Reserves the costs.

Luxembourg, 19 February 1960.