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 31 January 1962. # Société Fives Lille Cail and others v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community. # Joined cases 19-60, 21-60, 2-61 and 3-61.

ECLI:EU:C:1962:1

61960CO0019

January 31, 1962
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

61960O0019

European Court reports French edition Page 00627 Dutch edition Page 00665 German edition Page 00687 Italian edition Page 00613 English special edition Page 00314

Parties

IN JOINED CASES

19/60 - SOCIETE FIVES LILLE CAIL, PARIS,

21/60 - SOCIETE UNION SIDERURGIQUE DU NORD DE LA FRANCE ( USINOR ), PARIS,

2/61 - SOCIETE DES FORGES ET ATELIERS DU CREUSOT, PARIS,

3/61 - SOCIETE MARREL FRERES, RIVE-DE-GIER,

REPRESENTED BY JEAN-PIERRE ARON, ADVOCATE AT THE COUR D'APPEL, PARIS,

HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY,

REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, ITALO TELCHINI, ACTING AS AGENT, AND PROFESSOR ANDRE DE LAUBADERE, OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PARIS, ACTING AS CO-AGENT,

Grounds

ARTICLE 66 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS :

'1 . WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE INTERPRETATION OF JUDGMENTS THE COURT MAY, OF ITS OWN MOTION OR ON APPLICATION BY A PARTY MADE WITHIN TWO WEEKS AFTER THE DELIVERY OF A JUDGMENT, RECTIFY CLERICAL MISTAKES, ERRORS IN CALCULATION AND OBVIOUS SLIPS IN IT .'

THIS PROVISION REFERS, AS A POSSIBLE GROUND FOR RECTIFICATION, TO PURELY MATERIAL ERRORS IN A JUDGMENT IN CASES WHERE NO DIFFICULTY ARISES CONCERNING THE MEANING OR SCOPE OF THE DECISION . RECTIFICATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 66 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE CANNOT PURPORT TO AMEND OR REVISE A PREVIOUS DECISION .

HOWEVER, THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANTS DOES NOT SEEK RECTIFICATION OF AN ALLEGED OBVIOUS SLIP BUT THE AMENDMENT OF A FINDING IN LAW CONTAINED IN THE JUDGMENT .

IT IS THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE .

Operative part

HEREBY;

2 . ORDERS THE APPLICANTS TO BEAR THE COSTS .

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