C-111/63
ECLI:EU:C:1964:82
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61963CO0111
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
ORDER OF 25. 11.1964 — CASE 111/63
in conformity with the principles govern tion contributions, because no action
ing the equalization of ferrous scrap. was taken which could be regarded as
(b) Rules on interest a formal demand to the applicant to With regard also rules in
With in the
ap regard also to the rules on pay the arrears, whereas now the
terest there is in principle nothing in plicant is to all intents and purposes
the present case to justify the adoption treated as though it had been in arrear of a view different from the one I took in with the payment of its contributions.
the Mannesmann case (cf. heading II 3). This consideration should not however
There is one point to be noted with be used as a ground for calling in ques
regard to the equalization contributions tion the justification of the new rules
payable for the period prior to 1 on interest, but provides on the con
February 1957, that is to say, for the trary an additional reason for quashing period during which I submit that the the revocation of the exemption which
claim succeeds because the revocation was granted.
could not lawfully be effected. Rules on (c) With regard to the arrears of con
Janu interest such as those in Decision No tributions for the period after 31 7/61 must naturally appear to be ex ary 1957 the arguments relating to the
tremely unfair in cases such as the question of currency parities and the
present one, where no attempt was made rules on interest cannot justify a partial
for many years to collect the equaliza annulment of the contested decision.
III —
Summary and conclusion
In conclusion my opinion is as folows:
The contested decision must be annulled to the extent to which it makes an assessment for the first time on the applicant to equalization contributions for
scrap for the period from April 1956 to January 1957. On the other issues the application is admissible but unfounded. With regard to the costs the
Court should take into consideration the size of the sums demanded by the High Authority, as well as the extent and complexity of the submissions
concerning the various accordingly order the High accounting periods, and
Authority to bear three quarters and the applicant to bear one quarter of the costs of the Droceedings.
ORDER OF THE COURT <ap note>1</ap note> 25 NOVEMBER 1964
In Case 111/63
LEMMERZ-WERKE GMBH of Königswinter
applicant,
v
HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY
defendant, 1 — Language of the Case: German.
LEMMERZ-WERKE v HIGH AUTHORITY
Whereas the company Kloeckner-Werke AG of Duisburg—hereinafter called the intervener—lodged on 4 August 1964 an application to intervene in support of the submissions of the applicant in the main action;
Whereas in a letter lodged at the Court on 19 August 1964 the applicant in inter the main action stated that it raised no objection to the application to
vene; and whereas the defendant submits in its observations lodged on 14 September 1964 that the application to intervene should be dismissed;
Whereas the applicant in the main action claims that the Court should annul an individual decision calling upon it to pay a sum assessed under the im
ported ferrous scrap equalization scheme;
Whereas in support of its claim it submits in particular that during the rele
vant period it had not yet engaged in production within the meaning of
Article 80 of the ECSC Treaty, because at that time only experimental and
preparatory operations were being carried out at its factories;
Whereas the intervener claims to be the legal successor of the company Kloeckner-Hütte Bremen AG which at that time was in the same situation
as the applicant;
Whereas, since the High Authority must therefore apply the same criteria to all comparably placed undertakings, the judgment which the Court has to give in this case is bound to prejudge the intervener's case;
Whereas the defendant raises an objection of inadmissibility based on the fact that the intervener has not established that it has an interest in the result of the case but only that it has an interest in the successful prosecution of one
of the points put forward by the applicant in the main action;
Whereas according to the first paragraph of Article 34 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice the ECSC only persons of 'establishing an interest in the result of a case'
may intervene in that case;
'result' Whereas by the expression is to be understood the operative part of
the final judgment which the parties ask the Court to deliver;
Whereas, if under the second paragraph of Article 34 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the ECSC submissions made in an appli-
ORDER OF 25. 11. 1964 — CASE 111/63
cation to intervene shall be limited to supporting or requesting the rejection of the submissions of one of the parties, it follows that the interest in ques
tion must be established with reference to those submissions and not to the
grounds put forward in support of them;
Whereas this has not happened in this case because the intervener has not
established a direct, existing interest in the acceptance by the Court of these submissions, since the only interest claimed by the intervener is in the
success of certain of the applicant's arguments;
Whereas for these reasons the application to intervene must be dismissed;
Whereas, since the intervener's application has failed, under Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure it must therefore be ordered to pay the costs;
On those grounds,
Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the parties to the main action and the intervener; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General;
THE COURT
composed or: Ch. L. Hammes, President, A. M. Donner and R. Lecourt, Strauß (Rappor Presidents of Chambers, L. Delvaux, A. Trabucchi, W.
teur) and R. Monaco, Judges,
Advocate-Gneral: K. Roemer Registra: A. Van Houtte
hereby orders:
1. The application of Kloeckner-Werke AG to intervene is dismissed;
2. Kloeckner-Werke AG shall pay the costs of the intervention pro
ceedings.
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 25 November 1964.
A. Van Houtte Ch. L. Hammes
Registrar President