C-1/60

3. Application for revision of a judgment — Requirements as to admissibility (Protocol on the Statute of the Court annexed to the ECSC Treaty, Article 38; Rules of Procedure, Article 100)

1. The provisions governing the language of the first paragraph of Article 38 of the of the case are not provisions appertain­ Statue of the Court annexed to the ECSC ing to public policy. Treaty.

2. The Court is cognizant of four languages 3 An application for revision of a judgment as are all the institutions of the three is admissible only on discovery of a fact Communities. Therefore, by virtue of an which, on the one hand, was unknown irrebuttable presumption of law, the both to the Court and to the party apply­ Court is deemed to have knowledge of ing for the revision when the judgment the contents of documents produced was given and, on the other hand, is of which are drawn up in the official lan­ such a nature as to be a decisive factor re­ guages of the Community. Such a docu­ lating to the judgment the revision of ment may not be regarded as a fact un­ which is claimed. known to the Court within the meaning

In Case 1/60

Acciaieria Ferriera di Roma (FERAM), an Italian company limited by shares, appearing by the Chairman of its Board of Directors, Mr Alliata, represented and defended by Arturo Cottrau, of the Turin Bar, Advocate at the Corte di Cassa­ zione, Rome, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Georges Margue, 6 rue Alphonse-Munchen,

applicant,

THE COURT

composed of: A. M. Donner, President, L. Delvaux and R. Rossi, Presidents of Chambers, O. Riese and N. Catalano (Rapporteur), Judges,

Advocate-General: M. Lagrange Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

By letter of 16 November 1959 addressed to The defendant delivered its observations on the President of the Court of Justice, the ad­ the application for revision in a written vocate for the applicant, referring to the statement lodged on 2 March 1960, within operative part of the order of 1 October 1959 the timelimit set by the President in his let­ said: 'These documents were produced by ter of 12 February 1960. the defendant partly in French and partly in Dutch. Since the language of the case in II — Conclusions of the parties Case 23/59 is Italian and since the advocate for the applicant represents and defends The applicant claims that the Court should, several other Community undertakings in upon declaring the application for revision similar cases, we claim that the Court admissible: should, in accordance with Articles 29 and '1. Before re-examining the substance of 30 of the Rules of Procedure, order produc­ Case 23/59, order the High Authority to tion and exchange of these documents with regularize the procedure by lodging the the translations of the same into Italian, Italian translation of its documents; which is the language of the case...' 2. Allow the applicant a reasonable time to By letter of 25 November 1959, signed by examine the documents produced in due the Deputy Registrar of the Court, he was and proper form; given the following answer: 'With reference to your letter of 16th instant, I have to in­ 3. Accept that in the documents produced form you that the documents produced by in due and proper form the applicant the defendant in Case 23/59, partly in may discover other facts of such a nature French and partly in Dutch, will be translat­ as to be decisive in setting up the defend­ ed into Italian, the official language of the ant's liability, of which facts it could case. The High Authority has promised to have had no knowledge and could not produce this translation before Christmas'. previously put forward because of the failure to follow the correct procedure, Meanwhile, on 17 December 1959, judg­ ment was given in Case 23/59 and the ap­ and, having done so, restore the parties plication was rejected on the following and the case in fact and in law to the po­ grounds: sition as it was on 21 October 1959, the date of the lodging of the documents (a) The High Authority had never entered which were irregular as regards the lan­ into a commitment to the undertakings guage used, and allow the applicant, comprising a guarantee giving rise to con­ should it so choose, to produce other ma­ tractual or legal responsibility in the ab­ terial in its favour and further argu­ sence of improper conduct: ments;

Moreover, it states that 'the Advocate-Gen­ III — Submissions and arguments eral and the Court proceeded to examine of the parties the substance of the case without being able to understand the contents of the docu­ The submissions and arguments put for­ ments, production of which had been ward by the parties may be summarized as follows: ordered, and which, as has been said, were produced partly in French and partly in Dutch (the Court neither could nor should 1. The applicant pleads infringement of Ar­ ticles 29 and 30 of the Rules of Procedure. have taken note objectively of documents produced in disregard of the procedural law of the Community). It further states that It argues that in Case 23/59 the defendant, the Court delivered an unjust judgment as in lodging with the Registry documents not to substance because quite apart from any translated into Italian, improperly acted 'in other consideration as to substance, the im­ disregard of the Community rules concern­ proper conduct of the defendant, the lessen­ ing languages'. ing of the applicant's means of defence, and the fact that both the Advocate-General The applicant attributes an improper mo­ and the Court, as well as the applicant had tive to the defendant, namely that it wanted no knowledge of the contents of the docu­ to prevent the contents of those documents ments produced by the defendant could not coming to the knowledge of the applicant. fail to influence, and influence in the wrong As a result, since the defendant achieved its way, the formulation of the judgment of 17 purpose, 'the proceedings took place in in­ December 1959 in Case 23/59.' fringement of the law, and the applicant's means of defence were markedly dimin­ However the applicant declares that it is not ished'. possible for it to proceed to an examination of the substance of the contested judgment The applicant argues that Articles 29 and 30 in an attempt to discover the effect of the of the Rules of Procedure contain rules ap­ procedural irregularity of which it com­ pertaining to public policy, because their plains on the content of the judgment until purpose is to ensure the proper functioning such time as it shall be placed in a position of Community justice and, as such, are to understand the contents of the docu­ mandatory. To disregard them, therefore, ments at issue. constitutes a failure to follow the correct procedure and this cannot be condoned. 2. After having protested against the offen­ sive expressions contained in the applica­ The applicant argues that in the different tion, the defendant confines itself to con­ national legal systems, revision is always al­ testing the admissibility of the case without lowed in the following cases: going into the substance.

1. It must have exercised a decisive influ­ translation of the Dutch judgment in ence; which practically all the documents at issue were reproduced. Furthermore, 2. It must have remained unknown to the the provisions concerning languages are Court and to the party applying for revi­ not a matter of public policy. sion until the judgment has been de­ livered. (b) That the first requirement is not met either, because the documents in The defendant argues: question had no influence on the con­ tested judgment. (a) That the second requirement men­ tioned above is not met as regards the Finally, the defendant sees a contradiction Court because it had itself ordered pro­ between the insistence that the facts on the duction of the documents in question basis of which the revision is claimed are of of its own motion. Nor is the said re­ a decisive nature and the applicant's asser­ quirement met as regards the applicant, tion that it is not yet in a position to have for its advocate quoted a document knowledge of them. in French and had received the French

Grounds of judgment

Under the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 38 of the Statute of the Court annexed to the ECSC Treaty and of Article 100 (1) of the Rules of Proce­ dure, the Court sitting in the Deliberation Room is required as a preliminary mat­ ter to give in the form of a judgment its decision on the admissibility of the ap­ plication.

The application was made in due time and in proper form.

The applicant pleads infringement of Articles 29 and 30 of the Rules of Procedure. Its argument is based on the fact that in Case 23/59 the defendant, upon being called upon to do so by the Court, lodged with the Registry certain documents drawn up in languages other than the language of the case and which were not translated into that language for the purpose of communicating them to the ap­ plicant. It is argued that therefore the applicant was not able to refer to documents which could have supplied it with arguments in support of its case.

Therefore, the first fundamental requirement laid down by Article 38 (discovery of a fact unknown not only to the party applying for the revision, but also to the Court) is not met in the present case.

Moreover the judgment of which revision is claimed is not based on the docu­ ments in question except for the letter from Mr Spierenburg, Vice-President of the High Authority, of 24 February 1958. None the less, the judgment referred to that document in order to reject an argument which the applicant had deduced from that letter, thus showing that the applicant had a perfect understanding of it.

Therefore tje second requirement laid down by Article 38 (discovery of a fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor) is not met either.

The result of the foregoing is, therefore, that the application for revision made by the FERAM undertaking is not admissible.

In any event there can be no question of an infringement of the rights of the de­ fence because after having raised the question and having heard the clarification of the President, the advocate of the applicant did not ask the Court for the oral arguments to be postponed and for the Italian translations to be produced, which he certainly could have done during the course of the hearing.

Finally, the Court expresses its disapproval of the offensive wording used in the application against the defendant, and in paricular of the accusation, for which there is no evidence whatsoever, that there was an improper motive based on a desire to prevent the applicant from understanding the contents of the documents in question.

hereby:

1. Declares that the application is inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicant to bear the costs.

Donner Delvaux Rossi Riese Catalano

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 10 May 1960.

A. van Houtte A. M. Donner