C-220/78

In Joined Cases 220 and 221/78,

Azienda Laminazione Acciaio — A.L.A., S.p.A.,

and

Azienda Laminazione Ferro — A.L.F.E.R., S.p.A.,

companies whose registered office is at Pisogna (Brescia), represented by their managing director Antonio Giordani, assisted by Cesare Castelli of the Brescia Bar, with an address for service ir Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Thomas, Advocate, 11a, Boulevard Joseph II, applicants, v

I — Language of the Cast: Italian.

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts and Issues

The facts of the case and the course of Decision No 14/64 of the High the procedure may be summarized as Authority of the ECSC and of follows: Commission Decision No 962/77/ ECSC relating to mandatory minimum prices for certain concrete reinforcement bars. Notice of the penalties was given to I — Facts and procedure the companies on 5 June 1978.

On 30 May 1978, the Commission imposed penalties on the companies By registered letters received at the A.L.A. and A.L.F.E.R. for disregard of Court on 20 July 1978 the said

A.LA. AND A.LF.E.R. v COMMISSION

"As a preliminary it is fitting to point out On 2 October 1978 Applications 220 and that this application must be regarded as 221/78 dated 21 September and signed being made in good time although the by C. Castelli, of the Brescia Bar, were time-limit for bringing proceedings has registered at the Court. expired. By an application sent from Brescia on 15 July 1978 … the applicant objected in due time against the above- The Commission objected under Article mentioned measure even though the 91 (1) of the Rules of Procedure that the application itself was returned by the proceedings were inadmissible and the Court Registry on 21 July 1978 …, with Court, after hearing the views of the a request to comply with the provisions Advocate General, decided to open the of Articles 37 and 38 of the Rules of oral procedure without any preparatory Procedure. inquiry. It also decided, after hearing the Advocate General and consulting the parties, to join the two cases for the Article 38 (7) must therefore be regarded purposes of the oral procedure and as having been observed even though the judgment. date appointed for putting the application in order was not mentioned. This pleading is intended to put in order the applicant's previous application, which is now complete." II — Conclusions of the parties

The applications further contained in­ structions to Cesare Castelli of the The Commission claims that the Court should Brescia Bar to act on the applicants' behalf.

"— Declare the claim(s) inadmissible; The Commission stressed that the first applications of 20 July, which were returned by the Court Registry, were out — Order the applicant(s) to pay the costs." of time (more than a month and 10 days after notice of the contested decision) and were not signed by a lawyer. The latter point results in complete nullity not The applicants ask the Court to consider capable of being put in order within the whether their applications are admissible meaning of Article 38 (7) of the Rules of and if the Court should take the view Procedure, since putting in order is that they are inadmissible, to order each possible only in the instances referred to party "to bear its own costs". in paragraphs (2) to (6) of the same

article and not where Article 20 of the date of receipt and not that of despatch Statute of the Court of Justice of the is the criterion, is contrary to the general ECSC (mandatory assistance by a principle of Italian law on the subject. lawyer) or Article 37 (1) of the Rules of Procedure (signature of pleadings by a As regards the fact that the application lawyer) has not been complied with. was not signed by a lawyer, the sub­ sequent lodging of a supplemental The applicants observed that there is no application duly signed by a lawyer is provision in the Rules of Procedure sufficient to correct the defect in the barring an action because of a defect in original pleading. the application. Only Article 38 (7) provides that the Registrar shall prescribe Finally, if the Court does consider the a reasonable period within which the application inadmissible the applicants applicant is to comply. It is for the Court claim that each party should bear its own alone, and for this purpose it has full costs in view of the fact that they relied discretionary power, to rule on alleged in good faith on the letter from the irregularities in the procedure in order to Registry of 21 July 1978 asking them to decide, in the complete absence of comply with the provisions of Articles 37 provisions prescribing penalties for the and 38 and thus encouraging them to said irregularities, whether or not the think that they had been allowed a fresh application is admissible. period for bringing proceedings. By reason of delay and the fact that there was no lawyer the objections have become otiose because the period for IV — Oral procedure bringing proceedings has started to run afresh as a result of the letter of 21 July 1978 from the Registrar of the Court The hearing took place on 7 March 1979. returning the applications "in order that you may comply with the provisions of The Commission summarized the Articles 37 and 38". arguments in its written observations and As regards the ground of delay alleged in stated that it would be "very moderate" support of the objection to admissibility regarding costs in the event of the the applicants observe that the application's being found to be application was sent from Italy on inadmissible and would be satisfied with 15 July 1978, that is to say within the a more or less nominal amount. 40 days laid down, and they consider they are able to rely on the doctrine of The Advocate General delivered his force majeure, especially as Article 37 (3), opinion at the hearing on 14 March in providing that, in various cases, the 1979.

5 On 2 October 1978 applications signed by a lawyer and dated 21 September 1978 were registered at the Court Registry.

6 The Commission has claimed that the applications were inadmissible for disregard of the time-limit for bringing proceedings as laid down by Article 39 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the ECSC and Article 81 (2) of the Rules of Procedure as supplemented by Article 1 of Annex II to the said rules and because the first applications were not signed by a lawyer as required by Article 37 (1) of the rules.

7 Article 37 (3) of the Rules of Procedure provides that in the reckoning of time-limits for taking steps in proceedings, the only relevant date shall be that of lodgment at the Registry.

8 Regarding the original applications, comparison of the date of notification of the penalties with that of the receipt of the first applications at the Court

JUDGMENT OF 5. 4. 1979 — JOINED CASES 220 AND 221/78

Registry shows that they were lodged after the expiry of the time-limit of one month for bringing proceedings as extended by the time granted on account of distance, in this case ten days.

14 Article 69 (3) provides that where the circumstances are exceptional, the Court may order that the parties bear their own costs in whole or in part.

15 It is right to consider the circumstances of the present case as such in view of the statements made by the Commission.

A.LA. AND A.L.F.E.R. v COMMISSION

On those grounds,

THE COURT

hereby:

OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL CAPOTORTI DELIVERED ON 14 MARCH 1979 1

Mr President, observed and the second because there Members of the Court, was no lawyer. I shall consider them in that order. 1. The question of admissibility in both the present cases arises on two grounds: Regarding the first ground it must be the first because the prescribed period noted that the decisions of the for bringing proceedings was not Commission imposing penalties on the

I — Translated from the Italian.