C-56/64
ECLI:EU:C:1965:55
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61964CO0056
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
ORDER OF 10.6. 1965 — JOINED CASES 56 AND 58/64
involves must be accepted; in any case, it is decision also discloses defects of form and doubtful whether it would be great. substance which call for its annulment. In consequence Article 3 of the contested
C — Summary and conclusion
This then is my opinion: the applications of the Grundig and Consten companies against the Commission of the European Economic Community are admissible and well founded. For the reasons which I have given, the contested decision must be annulled in toto and the case referred back to the Commission for a fresh examina tion.
Since the applicants have succeeded on the main part of their argument, the Commission must bear their costs. The costs incurred by the applicants following the intervention of the UNEF and Leissner companies which supported the Commission must be borne by those companies. In view of the course taken by the proceedings, it seems proper to divide the costs of the applicants between the Commission and the two intervening parties in the approximate proportion of eight to two. I consider that the Commission alone should bear the costs of the Italian and German Governments, which intervened in support of the submissions of the applicants, because there was no particular dispute between these inter vening parties and the UNEF and Leissner companies, which intervened in support of the submissions of the Commission.
ORDER OF THE COURT 10 JUNE 1965 1
In Case 56/64
SOCIÉTÉ CONSTEN, the registered office of which is at Courbevoie (Seine), France,
applicant,
v
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY,
defendant.
Facts
Whereas by application made on 6 April intervene in Case 56/64 in support of the 1965 by Willy Leissner, SA, whose register conclusions of the defendant; ed office is at Strasbourg has sought leave to Whereas the applicant in the main action
1 — Language of the Case: French.
CONSTEN AND GRUNDIG v COMMISSION
seeks the annulment of the decision of the upon the outcome of the proceedings pend EEC Commission of 23 September 1964, ing between it and Consten before the which decision held the exclusive distribu French court; torship contract as well as the ancillary Whereas in fact this judgment will be agreement on the registration and use of binding on the Strasbourg court to the the GINT trade-mark made between the extent to which it has to adjudicate upon an Grundig and Consten companies to con objection of nullity of the exclusive distri stitute an infringement of the provisions of butorship contract based upon the infringe Article 85 of the EEC Treaty; ment of Article 85 of the EEC Treaty; Whereas the intervener was in 1961 sued by Whereas consequently the applicant con the Consten company before the Tribunal siders that it has a clear and legitimate de Grande Instance, Strasbourg, in the interest in intervening in the present case; Commercial Chamber of that court in an Whereas by a statement lodged on 7 May action in which Consten sought judgment 1965 the EEC Commission stated that it had that Leissner had committed an act of un no objection to raise against the admission fair competition by selling in France equip as intervener of the Leissner company, the ment produced by Grundig, compensation conditions laid down in Article 37 (2) of the for the damage suffered thereby and an Statute of the Court of the EEC being, in its order that Leissner should immediately opinion, fulfilled; stop all publicity and the soliciting of cus Whereas in its statement lodged on 7 May tom in respect of Grundig equipment; 1965 the applicant in the main action claims Whereas in support of that request the Con that the application to intervene is inadmis sten company relied upon its capacity as sible; exclusive representative of the Grundig Whereas it asserts in particular that the company in France as well as on its ex interpretation of Article 37 of the Statute of clusive right to use the GINT trade-mark the Court, according to the meaning pro for the sale in France of Grundig radio and pounded by the intervener, would imply electric equipment; that in a case of general interest all the Whereas in its reply and its conclusions in undertakings making parallel imports defence presented to the Strasbourg court would be entitled to intervene before the on 5 April 1965 the Leissner company sub Court; mitted that the exclusive distributorship Whereas it maintains further that in view contract made between Grundig and Con of the fact that the Leissner company has sten amounted inter alia to an infringement undertaken no proceedings before the Com of Article 85 of the EEC Treaty and relied mission only French courts are competent, especially upon the decision of the EEC in accordance with Article 9 (3) of the Commission made on 23 September 1964 Regulation of the Council No 17/62, to rule concerning the abovementioned contract; upon the objection of nullity based upon an Whereas in view of the foregoing the inter alleged infringement of Article 85 of the vener asserts that the judgment which the Treaty, which has been put forward before Court is to give in Case 56/64 will be of such the Strasbourg court; a nature as to exercise a direct influence
Law
Whereas under Article 37 (2) of the Statute of the Court annexed to the EEC Treaty any person establishing an interest in the result of any case has the right to intervene in that case;
Whereas the interest necessary in this respect must not relate simply to abstract legal arguments but to the actual conclusions of a party to the main action;
ORDER OF 10. 6. 1965 — JOINED CASES 56 AND 58/64
Whereas in the present case in consideration of the importance of the contested decision in relation to the outcome of the proceedings pending before the French court between the Consten and Leissner companies the acceptance or rejection of the conclusions of the defendant cannot fail to exercise a decisive influence on the
outcome of the abovementioned case;
Whereas therefore the position of the applicant in relation to the outcome of the present case is such as to establish its interest in intervening in support of the conclusions of the defendant in accordance with Article 37 (2) of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC;
Whereas it follows from the foregoing considerations that the application to intervene must succeed;
On those grounds,
Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to Article 37 (2) of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure;
THE COURT
composed of: Ch. L. Hammes, President, A. M. Donner and R. Lecourt, Pres idents of Chambers, L. Delvaux, A. Trabucchi (Rapporteur), W. Strauß and R. Monaco, Judges,
Advocate-General: K. Roemer
Registrar: A. Van Houtte
hereby makes the following
ORDER
1. The Leissner company is authorized to intervene in Case 56/64. A time limit shall be fixed for the lodging of the intervener's written observations in support of the conclusions of the defendant;
2. A copy of each pleading shall be reserved on the intervener by the Registrar;
3. The costs are reserved.
Luxembourg, 10 June 1965.
A. Van Houtte Ch. L. Hammes
Registrar President