Avis juridique important

61976O0088

European Court reports 1976 Page 01585

Parties

IN CASE 88/76 R

SOCIETE POUR L ' EXPORTATION DES SUCRES , A COMPANY LIMITED BY SHARES , HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 54 ST . KATELIJNEVEST , ANTWERP , IN THE PERSONS OF ALAIN GRISAR AND EMOND MUULS , MEMBERS OF THE BOARD , REPRESENTED AND ASSISTED BY WILMA VISCARDINI , OF THE PADUA BAR , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF ERNEST ARENDT , CENTRE LOUVIGNY , 34 B/IV RUE PHILIPPE II ,

APPLICANT ,

V COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER , PETER GILSDORF , ACTING AS AGENT , ASSISTED BY JACQUES DELMOLY OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF M . CERVINO , BATIMENT JEAN MONNET , KIRCHBERG ,

DEFENDANT ,

Grounds

1 UNDER ARTICLE 83 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , A SUSPENSION OF OPERATION IS SUBJECT TO THE EXISTENCE OF CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO URGENCY AND TO GROUNDS ESTABLISHING A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR THE INTERIM MEASURE APPLIED FOR .

2 ON THE ONE HAND , THE APPLICANT WAS , AFTER THE CONTESTED REFUSAL OF CANCELLATION , STILL FREE TO MAKE USE OF THE LICENCES IN QUESTION UNTIL THE DATE OF THEIR EXPIRY .

3 ON THE OTHER HAND , IN DEFAULT OF THE CONTEMPLATED EXPORT THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCE OF THE REFUSAL OF CANCELLATION WAS THAT THE DEPOSIT FELL DUE ON THE DATE WHEN THE LICENCES EXPIRED .

4 IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES , THE ONLY MEASURE OF SUSPENSION OF OPERATION CONSISTENT WITH THE SUBJECT OF THE DISPUTE WOULD BE SUSPENSION OF THE DATE WHEN THE DEPOSIT FALLS DUE .

5 ON THE OTHER HAND , AN EXTENSION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE LICENCES WOULD GIVE THE APPLICANT A FURTHER ADVANTAGE WHICH IS UNCONNECTED WITH THE SUBJECT OF THE DISPUTE OR THE DIFFICULTIES WHICH IT INVOLVES .

6 IN CONSEQUENCE , THE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER GRANTING SUCH EXTENSION MUST BE REFUSED .

7 AS REGARDS THE ALTERNATIVE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER THAT THE DEPOSIT SHALL NOT BE FORFEITED UNTIL THE PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN CONCLUDED BY JUDGMENT THE APPLICANT , IN ITS ORAL OBSERVATIONS , STATED THAT , EVEN IF THE SECURITY WERE RETURNED TO IT UNDER A FINAL JUDGMENT IN ITS FAVOUR , THE FACT THAT , IN THE MEANTIME , THE DEPOSIT HAD BEEN TREATED AS FORFEITED WOULD INVOLVE IT IN CONSIDERABLE EXPENSE BY WAY OF INTEREST , WHICH WOULD NOT BE RECOVERABLE .

8 THE DEFENDANT HAS NOT CONTESTED THIS STATEMENT OR HAS ONLY DONE SO HALF-HEARTEDLY AND IN VAGUE TERMS .

9 IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES , IT IS PROPER THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO INFORM THE COMPETENT BELGIAN AUTHORITIES THAT THE DEPOSIT IN QUESTION CANNOT BE TREATED AS FORFEITED SO LONG AS THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT TERMINATING THE PROCEEDINGS IS STILL PENDING .

Decision on costs

COSTS

10 EACH PARTY HAS ASKED THAT THE OTHER SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .

11 AT THE PRESENT STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS , THE COSTS MUST BE RESERVED .

Operative part

ON THOSE GROUNDS ,

BY WAY OF INTERLOCUTORY DECISION

HEREBY ORDERS :

1 . THE COMMISSION SHALL INFORM THE COMPETENT BELGIAN AUTHORITIES THAT THE DEPOSIT IN DISPUTE CANNOT BE REGARDED AS FORFEITED SO LONG AS THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT TERMINATING THE PROCEEDINGS IS STILL PENDING ;

2 . COSTS ARE RESERVED .