C-229/81
ECLI:EU:C:1982:46
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61981CO0229
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
O R D E R OF T H E C O U R T 9 FEBRUARY 1982 1
CO.DE.MI. SpA v Commission of Euratom (application by the President of the Tribunale, Varese, for the enforcement of an order previously made by him)
Case 229/81
In Case 229/81
APPLICATION by the President of the Tribunale, Varese, for the enforcement of an order previously made by him
THE COURT
composed of: J. Mertens de Wilmars, President, G. Bosco, A. Touffait and O. Due (Presidents of Chambers), Lord Mackenzie Stuart, A. O'Keeffe, T. Koopmans, U. Everling, A. Chloros and F. Grévisse, Judges,
Advocate General: Sir Gordon Slynn Registrar: A. Van Houtte
Having heard the views of the Advocate General,
makes the following 1 — Language of the Case: Italian.
ORDER OF 9. 2. 1982 — CASE 229/81
ORDER
Facts and Issues
On 14 and 20 December 1979 the Italian Tribunale an "application for the company CO.DE.MI., SpA, of Milan, annulment" of the order of 12 May on signed two contracts with the Com- the ground that he had no jurisdiction to mission of the European Atomic Energy order the measures in question by virtue, Community, represented by the Deputy on the one hand, of Article 1 of the Director of the Joint Research Centre at Protocol on the Privileges and Im- Ispra, for the construction at the Centre munities of the European Communities, of a main entrance building and a signed in Brussels on 8 April 1965, and, building described as a "Management on the other hand, of the clauses Building". conferring jurisdiction upon the Court of Justice of the European Communities inserted, in pursuance of Article 153 of The performance of these contracts the EAEC Treaty, in the contracts gave rise to disagreements between concluded between CO.DE.MI. and the CO.DE.MI. and the Commission. Commission.
As a result of the difficulties, As a result of the Commission's CO.DE.MI. requested the President of application, the President of the the Tribunale, Varese, to assign to a Tribunale, by order of 20 July 1981 technical expert the task of establishing which was received at the Court Registry the state of the works and of ascer- on 6 August 1981, requested the taining the decisions taken by the person President of the Court to "enforce" his who commissioned the building and the previous order of 12 May 1981. main contractor in relation to certain portions of the works. This document was communicated by the Court Registry to CO.DE.MI. and to the Commission, and they were invited By order of 12 May 1981 the President to submit their observations which were of the Tribunale recognized the necessity lodged at the Court Registry on 15 and urgency of a technical check on the September 1981. works and commissioned an expert to carry out the measures requested by CO.DE.MI. and to try to bring about a In its observations the Commission reconciliation between the parties. repeats the argument which it had submitted before the Tribunale and which seeks to demonstrate that the On three occasions the Commission President of that court had no refused to allow the expert appointed by jurisdiction to prescribe the measures the President of the Tribunale to enter contained in his order of 12 June. upon the building sites. CO.DE.MI. maintains, on the other On 30 June 1981 the Commission hand, that the President of the Tribunale submitted to the President of the had jurisdiction to make that order.
CO.DE.MI v COMMISSION
Decision
1 Article 92 (1) of the Rules of Procedure provides: "Where it is clear that the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of an application lodged with it in pursuance of Article 38 (1), the Court may by reasoned order declare the application inadmissible."
2 That provision must be applied in the present case. It is clear from the very terms of the order made on 20 July 1981 by the President of the Tribunale, Varese, that he is requesting the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities to "enforce, by his decision", the order which he had made on 12 May 1981 for the procurement of a technical expert's report. Neither the Treaties nor the measures adopted for the purpose of implementing them contain any provision empowering the Court of Justice or its President to order the enforcement of a decision of a national court.
3 Consequently, both the Court and its President plainly have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the application made by the President of the Tribunale in his order of 20 June 1981, and the application must therefore, by virtue of the above-cited provisions of Article 92 of the Rules of Procedure, be declared inadmissible.
On those grounds,
THE COURT
hereby:
Declares the application to be inadmissible.
Luxembourg, 9 February 1982.
J. A. Pompe J. Mertens de Wilmars Deputy Registrar President