C-19/60
ECLI:EU:C:1962:1
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61960CO0019
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
OPINION OF MR ROEMER-JOINED CASES 19/60, 21/60, 2/61, 3/61
given de facto and de jure to shipyard scrap III — To summarize the considerations of for the benefit of the ship-breaking under the actions for a wrongful act or omission, takings of the Community and also on there can be no doubt that certain aspects of grounds of quality. The applicants do not the conduct of the OCCF justify the impres deny the legality of this policy. For the pur sion that it was at fault. Nevertheless, when pose of assessing their claim, therefore, all the circumstances are taken into ac evidence must also be produced that there count, there can be no question of a were legal grounds (for example relating to wrongful act or omission on the part of the the prohibition on discrimination) which en High Authority which compels it to make sured that they would have been allowed in good the damage allegedly suffered. If the all circumstances to purchase cheaper im Court were to take a different view on this ported scrap. issue it would, in my opinion, be necessary In view of the applicants' explanations, to undertake an inquiry in order to reach a which carry little weight, and in the absence definite decision on the applications relating of any offer of suitable proof, I cannot im to a wrongful act or omission, to settle the agine how it would have been possible to issue of the chain of causation, and to deter provide such evidence on every point. mine the extent of the damage.
C — Summary and conclusion I recommend the Court not to adopt my alternative suggestions, to dismiss in their entirety as unfounded Applications 19/60 and 21/60 and Applications 2/61 and 3/61 and to order the applicants to pay the costs.
ORDER OF THE COURT
31 January 19621
In Joined Cases
19/60 — SOCIÉTÉ FIVES LILLE Cail, PARIS,
21/60 — SOCIÉTÉ UNION SIDÉRURGIQUE DU NORD DE la France (USINOR), PARIS,
2/61 — SOCIÉTÉ DES FORGES ET ATELIERS DU CREUSOT, PARIS,
3/61 — SOCIÉTÉ MARREL FRÈRES, RIVE-DE-GIER,
represented by Jean-Pierre Aron, Advocate at the Cour d'Appel, Paris,
v
High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community,
represented by its Legal Adviser, Italo Telchini, acting as Agent, and Professor Andre de Laubadère, of the University of Paris, acting as co-Agent,
1 - Language of the Case: French.
FIVES LILLE CAIL v HIGH AUTHORITY
THE COURT
composed of: A. M. Donner, President, J. Rueff, President of Chamber, L. Delvaux, Ch. L. Hammes (Rapporteur) and R. Rossi, Judges,
Advocate-General: K. Roemer
Registrar: A. Van Houtte
makes the following
ORDER
Facts
On 15 December 1961 the Court assessed at the amounts of the transport delivered judgment in Joined Cases parities and rules that the damage was 19/60, 21/60, 2/61 and 3/61. not established.
On 28 December 1961, the applicants In observations submitted on 16 submitted an application for rectifica January 1962, the defendant, the High tion of this judgment under Article 66 of Authority, contends that the Court the Rules of Procedure; they claim should declare the application for rec therein that the concluding paragraphs tification inadmissible or, in any case, of the grounds of judgment contain an dismissed, with all legal consequences in obvious slip in that the Court did not respect of the costs of the proceedings. allow the applicants' damage to be
Grounds
Article 66 of the Rules of Procedure provides as follows:
'1. Without prejudice to the provisions relating to the interpretation of judgments the Court may, of its own motion or on application by a party made within two weeks after the delivery of a judgment, rectify clerical mistakes, errors in calculation and obvious slips in it.'
This provisioň refers, as a possible ground for rectification, to purely material errors in a judgment in cases where no difficulty arises concerning the meaning or scope of the decision. Rectification within the meaning of Article 66 of the Rules of Procedure cannot purport to amend or revise a previous decision.
OPINION OF MR ROEMER—JOINED CASES 19/60, 21/60, 2/61, 3/61
However, the application submitted by the applicants does not seek rectification of an alleged obvious slip but the amendment of a finding in law contained in the judgment.
It is therefore inadmissible.
Having regard to the foregoing considerations; Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the views of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the views of the Advocate-General; Having regard to Articles 66 and 69 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities;
THE COURT
hereby;
1. Dismisses the application for rectification of the judgment delivered on 15 December 1961;
2. Orders the applicants to bear the costs.
Luxembourg, 31 January 1962.
A. Van Houtte A. M. Donner President Registrar