EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Order of the Court of 14 July 1971. # Rheinmühlen-Düsseldorf v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel. # Reference for a preliminary ruling: Bundesfinanzhof - Germany. # Case 6-71.

ECLI:EU:C:1971:83

61971CO0006

July 14, 1971
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

Avis juridique important

61971O0006

European Court reports 1971 Page 00719

Parties

IN CASE 6/71

REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE BUNDESFINANZHOF FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT BETWEEN

RHEINMUEHLEN DUESSELDORF, DUESSELDORF-HOLTHAUSEN,

AND

EINFUHR - UND VORRATSSTELLE FUER GETREIDE UND FUTTERMITTEL, FRANKFURT-AM-MAIN,

Subject of the case

ON THE INTERPRETATION AND VALIDITY OF CERTAIN COMMUNITY REGULATIONS .

Grounds

1 ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY HAS ESTABLISHED DIRECT CO-OPERATION BETWEEN THE COURT OF JUSTICE AND NATIONAL COURTS UNDER A NON-CONTENTIOUS PROCEDURE INDEPENDENT OF ANY ACTION TAKEN BY THE PERSONS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 20 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EEC, INCLUDING THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN ACTION, DURING WHICH THOSE PERSONS ARE ONLY ENTITLED TO SUBMIT WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS AND TO BE HEARD ONCE IN THE ORAL PROCEDURE .

2 THE COURT CANNOT THEREFORE BE COMPELLED AT THE REQUEST OF ONE OF THOSE PERSONS, EITHER TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF A STATEMENT SUBMITTED AFTER THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN HEARD OR TO ORDER THE ORAL PROCEDURE TO BE RESUMED OR RE-OPENED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ITS POWER TO DECIDE FREELY WHETHER SUCH MEASURES ARE EXPEDIENT, HOWEVER, DOES NOT SEEM TO IT TO BE NECESSARY IN THE PRESENT CASE .

3 FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN ACTION AND ITS STATEMENT OF 5 JULY 1971 MUST BE CONSIDERED INADMISSIBLE .

Operative part

THE COURT

COMPOSED OF : R . LECOURT, PRESIDENT, A . M . DONNER AND A . TRABUCCHI, PRESIDENTS OF CHAMBERS, R . MONACO, J . MERTENS DE WILMARS, P . PESCATORE AND H . KUTSCHER ( RAPPORTEUR ), JUDGES,

ADVOCATE-GENERAL : A . DUTHEILLET DE LAMOTHE

REGISTRAR : A . VAN HOUTTE

MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDER .

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia