Avis juridique important

61959O0033

European Court reports French edition Page 00777 Dutch edition Page 00813 German edition Page 00829 Italian edition Page 00757 English special edition Page 00408

Parties

IN JOINED CASES 33, 46 AND 47/59

2 . MERONI & CO ., A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP GOVERNED BY ITALIAN LAW, HAVING ITS OFFICES AT ERBA ( COMO ), REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY AUTHORIZED ATTORNEY, AGOSTINO ARTIOLI,

3 . MERONI & CO ., A LIMITED COMPANY GOVERNED BY ITALIAN LAW, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SETTIMO TORINESE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE DIRECTOR, DR ALDO MERONI,

ALL WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF GEORGES MARGUE, 20 RUE PHILIPPE-II, AND ALL ASSISTED BY ARTURO COTTRAU OF THE TURIN BAR, ADVOCATE AT THE CORTE DI CASSAZIONE IN ROME, THE FIRST APPLICANT ALSO BEING ASSISTED BY NOEL CHAPUIS OF THE VIENNE ( ISERE ) BAR, APPLICANTS,

HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, PROFESSOR GIULIO PASETTI, ACTING AS AGENT, ASSISTED BY WALTER BIGIAVI, PROFESSOR OF COMMERCIAL LAW AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT ITS OFFICES, 2 PLACE DE METZ, DEFENDANT,

Subject of the case

APPLICATION FOR PECUNIARY REPARATION FOR AN INJURY ALLEGEDLY CAUSED BY A WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY;

Grounds

WHEREAS, IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT, CERTAIN FACTS HAVE NOT AS YET BEEN SUFFICIENTLY CLARIFIED BY THE PARTIES;

HAVING REGARD TO ARTICLE 61 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE,

Operative part

HEREBY ORDERS :

2 . THE PARTIES ARE REQUESTED TO GIVE WRITTEN REPLIES BEFORE 20 APRIL 1962 TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS, EXCEPT QUESTION A ( B ) TO WHICH A REPLY SHALL BE PRODUCED BEFORE 20 MAY 1962.

A . ( A ) QUESTION TO THE APPLICANTS :

WHAT ARE THE PRECISE FACTS, OTHER THAN THOSE RELATING TO THE FRAUDULENT CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE HEAD OF THE IRON AND STEEL DEPARTMENT OF THE MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS OF THE NETHERLANDS, WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANTS, GIVE RISE TO THE WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY AND ON WHICH THE APPLICANTS INTEND TO BASE THEIR RESPECTIVE APPLICATIONS?

( B ) QUESTION TO THE DEFENDANT :

FOR WHAT REASONS DOES THE DEFENDANT CONSIDER THAT THE FACTS STATED IN THE REPLY TO QUESTION A ( A ) DO NOT PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION WHICH MAY BE IMPUTED TO THE HIGH AUTHORITY?

B . QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANTS AND THE DEFENDANT :

( A ) WERE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE APPLICANT COMPANIES DIRECTORS OR MEMBERS OF THE OCCF, OF THE CPFI OR OF ONE OF THE REGIONAL OFFICES?

( B ) IF THIS QUESTION IS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, SPECIFY THEIR POWERS, IN PARTICULAR IN RELATION TO THE ORGANIZATION FOR THE CHECKING OF THE CERTIFICATES OF ORIGIN DURING THEIR TERM OF OFFICE .

C . QUESTION TO THE DEFENDANT :

DOES THE DEFENDANT INTEND THAT THE AMOUNTS WRONGLY PAID AND IRRECOVERABLE, TOGETHER WITH THE EXPENSES OF THE ENQUIRY, SHALL BE BORNE BY THE UNDERTAKINGS SUBJECT TO THE EQUALIZATION SCHEME, UNTIL THE FINAL ACCOUNTING, OR DOES IT INTEND TO BEAR THEM ITSELF?

3 . ANY DECISION AS TO SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE IS RESERVED .