C-31/79
ECLI:EU:C:1979:84
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61979CO0031
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF 27 MARCH 1979 <apnote>1</apnote>
Société des Aciéries de Montereau v Commission of the European Communities
Case 31/79 R
In Case 31/79 R
SOCIÉTÉ DES ACIÉRIES DE MONTEREAU, Montereau Fault Yonne, France, represented and assisted by Messrs Bruckhaus, Kreifels, Winkhaus, Lieberknecht, Canenbley and Moosecker, 2 Berliner Allee, Düsseldorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Bonn, 22 Côte d'Eich,
applicant, v
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, represented by Götz zur Hausen, a member of the Commission's Legal Department, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Mario Cervino, Legal Adviser to the Commission, Jean Monnet Building, Kirchberg, defendant,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
makes the following
ORDER
Facts and Issues
The facts of the case may be summarized upon it a fine amounting to 115 896 as follows: European units of account, that is to say, FF 670 000. That decision is based on The applicant is an undertaking manufac turing concrete reinforcement bars. By a Articles 61 and 64 of the ECSC Treaty decision of 10 January 1979 the and on Commission Decision No
Commission, the defendant, imposed 962/77/ECSC of 4 May 1977 fixing
1 — Language of the Case: German.
ORDER OF 27. 3. 1979 — CASE 31/79 R
minimum prices for certain concrete it is in an extremely difficult economic reinforcement bars (Official Journal No situation and that the payment of the L 114, p. 1). The preamble to the fines will deprive it still more of liquid decision of 10 January 1979 states that funds whilst the Commission has no between June and December 1977 the lawful interest, according to the applicant delivered credit notes for sales applicant, in demanding an instalment of concrete reinforcement bars and before the decision in the main action. allowed discounts which were forbidden The applicant takes the view that it is not by Decision No 962/77/ECSC. The compatible with the general principles of applicant has contested the Commis the rule of law for the Commission to sion's decision of 10 January 1979 by an application for its annulment. insist on the damaging effects of the contested decision before the Court has On 5 March the applicant further claimed that the Court should: given its judgment in the main action. Order the suspension of the operation of In its observations of 14 March 1979 the the Decision of the Commission of the Commission contends that the European Communities of 10 January application should be dismissed. 1979 regarding a fine imposed on the It observes in particular that the applicant … until a decision has been suspension of operation is not urgent. It reached in the proceedings initiated by states that the applicant does not run the application of 23 February 1979. risk of enforcement of the contested In support of this application the decision since before proceeding to applicant points out that the suspension enforcement the Commission once more of operation is urgent because there is a expressly invites the undertaking in risk that it will be enforced, because by question to pay, whereas the letter of 17 letter of 17 January 1979 the Commission in fact invited it to pay an January 1979 from the Commission did amount of FF 100 000 within two not amount to such a demand for
months counting from the notification of payment. Furthermore the Commission the decision of 10 January 1979, whilst states that it will not proceed to declaring itself ready to discuss the enforcement of the contested decision of
detailed arrangements for payment of the 10 January 1979 whilst the main action is remaining sum. The applicant claims that still pending.
Decision
1 According to Article 83 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, an application to suspend the operation of any measure adopted by an institution must state the circumstances giving rise to urgency and the factual and legal grounds establishing a prima facie case for the interim measures applied for.
2 There is no need to consider whether the grounds invoked by the applicant, namely its "extremely difficult economic situation" and the financial disad-
SOCIÉTÉ DES ACIÉRIES DE MONTEREAU v COMMISSION
vantages attached to immediate payment of the fine are of such a nature as to constitute a sufficient ground for suspending the operation of the contested decision.
As the Commission has stated that it is willing not to proceed to enforcement of the contested decision as long as the main action is pending it is in any event certain that the suspension of the operation of the Commission Decision of 10 January 1979 which has been requested is neither urgent nor justified.
The application must therefore be dismissed.
3 Costs should be reserved until final judgment in the main action.
On those grounds, the President, as an interlocutory decision, hereby orders as follows:
1. The application is dismissed.
2. Costs are reserved until final judgment in Case 31/79.
Luxembourg, 27 March 1979
A. Van Houtte H. Kutscher
Registrar President