C-16/62
ECLI:EU:C:1962:35
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61962CO0016
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
PRODUCTEURS DE FRUITS v COUNCIL
judg more effective participation by the reply may be found in one of your parliamentary organ of the Community. ments (Cases 36 to 38/59 and 40/59, I beg to be excused for this incursion Comptoirs de vente du charbon de la Ruhr into the political arena. I have under and Nold v. High Authority, Rec. 1960, p. taken it only to show that we are present 857 to p. 890). 'The Court, which judges ed here, by the authors of the Treaty, legality of decisions taken by the High the
with a considered choice which it cannot Authority and consequently of those be for the Court to correct. taken in the present case in accordance
To conclude, I wish replyto to the with Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty, arguments put forward in Application does not have the function of ensuring 22/62, based on the principles of German respect for rules of internal law, even
consitutional law relating to the legal of consitutional law, in force in one or States.' protection which has been established other of the Member within the German legal system. This
In short, I consider that the objection raised by the Council in all these cases ought to be upheld and, consequently, I am of the opinon:
that the applications should be dism sed; and
— that the costs be borne by the applicant associations, with the costs of the intervener in Cases 16 and 17/62 to be borne by the latter.
ORDER OF THE COURT 24 OCTOBER 1962 1
In Case 16/62 2
1. C onfédération nationale des PRODUCTEURS de fruits et légumes,
2. F édération nationale des producteurs de fruits,
3. F édération nationale des producteurs de légumes,
applicants,
v
C ouncil of The E uropean E conomic C ommunity,
defendant,
Having regard to the application for leave to intervene in the application for annulment of Regulation No 23 of the Council of the European Economic 1 — Language of the Case: French. 2 — The Order in Case 17/62 is identical with that in Case 16/62.
ORDER OF 14.12.1962 — JOINED CASES 16 AND 17/62
Community, and in particular of Article 9 thereof, (Official Journal of the Communities of 20 April 1962, pp. 965 et seq.) lodged on 31 August 1962 by the Assemblée permanente des presidents de chambre d'agriculture, the head office of which is in Paris, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Georges Margue, avocat-avoué, 20 rue Philippe-II, represented by its President, Rene Blondelle, assisted by Pierre de Font- Réaulx, advocate of the Paris Cour d'Appel;
Having regard to the statement filed by the applicants in the main action on 4 October 1962 'take satisfaction'
stating that they note with of the
interv ntio ;
Having regard to the statement filed by the defendant in the main action in which it first points out certain considerations which, in its view, militate
against the acceptance of the interventions as admissible, and secondly states that it 'leaves these considerations to the discretion of the Court';
Whereas, the intervention is intended to support the conclusions of the
applicants in the main action and is in proper form and has been presented
within the prescribed time;
Whereas, under the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Economic
Community, any person other than the Member States and the Institutions of the Community may, as in the present case, intervene in cases between private persons and a Community institution provided that the said person establishes an interest in the result of the case;
Whereas the expression 'any.. . person', being drafted in the widest possible
terms, includes associations such as the party intervening;
Whereas, contrary to the proposition put forward by the defendant in the main action, nothing in the text of the above-mentioned Protocol leads to the conclusion that the interest of the intervener should be distinct from that
of the party whom he sup orts; and whereas even in this case the purpose of the intervention is to allow the intervener to put forward its own arguments
in support of the common cause;
Whereas according to the terms of the French Decree Law of 30 October 1935 the intervener is, 'in relation to public authorities, the consultative and
representative organization concerned with the general and special interests
of agriculture in metropolitan France', whence it follows that it has a
PRODUCTEURS DE FRUITS v COUNCIL
legitimate interest in defending the interests of French agricultural producers;
Whereas on the other hand the disputed Regulation, which requires in
particular the abolition of quantitative restrictions on imports of fruit and
vegetables, is capable of affecting the interests of the national producers of these go ds;
Whereas it follows from the foregoing considerations that the application to intervene is admissible;
Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General;
Having regard to Article 37 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Economic Community;
THE COURT
composed of: A. M. Donner, President, L. Delvaux and R. Rossi (Presidents
of Chambers), O. Riese (Rapporteur), Ch. L. Hammes, A. Trabucchi and R. Lecourt, Judges,
Advocate-General: M. Lagrange Registrar: A. Van Houtte
hereby makes the following
ORDER
1. That the Assemblée permanente des présidents de chambres d'agriculture be allowed to intervene;
2. That a copy of each pleading be served on the intervener by the Registrar;
3. That the costs be reserved.
Luxembourg, 24 October 1962.
A. Van Houtte A. M. Donner Registrar President