C-36/64
ECLI:EU:C:1964:68
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61964CO0036
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
ORDER OF 17. 9. 1964 — CASE 36/64
tract' ('Geschäftsgrundlage'), even if it expected to have its participation in cannot be considered, in the law govern OKU terminated, and consequently, as ing cartels, as a condition or obligation. from that date, there could no longer We read there that, even when Decis be a question of an interest entitled to ion No 3/62 was taken, because of the judicial protection based on the hope new commercial regulations for the of stabilizing the situation ('Vertrauens- Ruhr in force since 1961, French whole interesse'). Moreover, the applicant has sale coal merchants met no obstacle to not disputed the statement of the High being supplied directly from the Ruhr, Authority that, from that time, the vari and thus equally (it must be added) ous French wholesale coal merchants in to fulfilling the ordinary conditions for fact fulfilled the conditions governing participation in OKU. Although never supply from the Ruhr, and that it has theless, and still provisionally, become economically feasible for them SOREMA's membership of OKU was to engage in commercial activities in authorized, it was solely because the Southern Germany. Nothing prevents final structure of the conditions of sale them therefore from fulfilling the con operating in the Ruhr was not estab ditions for becoming directly associated lished and could not be shown. But it with OKU and thereby ensuring for is, in my opinion, this circumstance themselves the consequentional advan which showed clearly that after they tages. were definitely and uniformly fixed, the Taking all these factors together and collective participation of SOREMA in carrying out the necessary balance of OKU could no longer be justified. As interests one is led to the conclusion we know the condition to which I have that there is no valid criticism of the just referred appeared in 1963, and the revocation of the cartel authorization, High Authority had already drawn at which was defective in the first place, tention to it in Case 67/63. As from contained in the High Authority's De that time, the applicant should have cision No 15/64.
III — Summary and conclusion
Consequently without examining other possible justifications for the revoca tion or the arguments submitted in the application with regard to them, my final opinion is as follows:
The application by SOREMA must be dismissed as unfounded and the applicant must be ordered to bear the costs.
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT 17 SEPTEMBER 1964<apnote>1</apnote>
In Case 36/64 R
SOCIÉTÉ RHÉNANE D'EXPLOITATION ET DE MANUTENTION 'SOREMA', a limited liability company having its registered office in Strasbourg, 11 rue Fischart, represented by its managers and by R. Garon, Advocate of the 1 — Language of the Case: French.
SOREMA v HIGH AUTHORITY
Strasbourg Bar, 8 rue du Marché, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Charles Turk, Advocate at the Court of Luxembourg, 6 rue Brasseur,
applicant,
v
HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY, Luxem bourg, represented by its Agents Messrs Matthies and Olivier, with an address for service in Luxembourg at its offices, 2 place de Metz, defendant,
Application to suspend the operation of Decision No 15/64 of 15 July 1964 of the High Authority, contested in the main application.
Facts
Whereas the applicant, by an applica cant on 22 July 1964 and published tion lodged at the Court Registry on 14 in the 'Official Journal of the European August 1964, requested the annulment Communities' on 28 July 1964, shall of Decision No 15/64 of 15 July 1964 be suspended until the Court has given of the High Authority of the European final judgment on its application; Coal and Steel Community, concerning Reserve the costs.' the participation of the Société Rhénane Whereas the defendant on 9 September d'Exploitation et de Manutention, Stras 1964 lodged its observations concerning bourg, in the Oberrheinische Kohleun the application for the adoption of an on, Bettag, Puton & Co., Mannheim; interim measure, in which it contends Whereas in its application for suspen that the application for suspension of sion of the operation of the said De the operation of the said Decision made cision, lodged at the Court Registry on by the SOREMA company should be 14 August 1964, the applicant claimed dismissed, with all the consequences in that the Court should: law particularly as to costs; 'Order that the operation of Decision Whereas the parties, having been duly No 15/64 of 15 July 1964 of the High summoned, appeared on 17 September Authority of the European Coal and 1964 before the President and submitted Steel Community notified to the appli- their oral observations;
Law
Whereas the applicant has alleged that the execution of Decision No 15/64 of 15 July 1964 would involve irreparable damage for it;
Whereas, nonetheless, the circumstances following upon the judgment in Case 67/63 of 19 March 1964 and in particular the attitude adopted by OKU do not appear to justify this allegation;
ORDER OF 17. 9. 1964 — CASE 36/64
Whereas the applicant has not put forward facts or arguments capable of invalidating this finding;
Whereas consequently the conditions necessary for the grant of a suspension of the operation of the Decision have not been met;
Whereas, therefore, the application for suspension must be dismissed;
On those grounds,
Having regard to Articles 33 and 39 of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, and to Article 33 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Coal and Steel Community, Having regard to Articles 83, 84 and 86 of the Rules of Procedure,
The President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
hereby orders:
1. The application is dismissed.
2. The costs are reserved.
Luxembourg, 17 September 1964.
A. Van Houtte A. M. Donner
Registrar President