Avis juridique important

61959O0021

European Court reports French edition Page 00717 Dutch edition Page 00739 German edition Page 00737 Italian edition Page 00691 English special edition Page 00351

Parties

IN CASE 21/59 R

GOVERNMENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC, REPRESENTED BY PROFESSOR RICCARDO MONACO, HEAD OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, ACTING AS AGENT, ASSISTED BY PIETRO PERONACI, SOSTITUTO AVVOCATO GENERALE DELLO STATO, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE ITALIAN EMBASSY, APPLICANT,

HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, GIULIO PASETTI, ACTING AS AGENT, ASSISTED BY MARIO BERRI, LEGAL ADVISER TO THE HIGH AUTHORITY, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT ITS OFFICES, 2 PLACE DE METZ, DEFENDANT,

Subject of the case

BY AN APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 4 APRIL 1959, THE APPLICANT REQUESTED THE ANNULMENT OF DECISION NO 18/59 OF 18 FEBRUARY 1959 ON THE PUBLICATION OR NOTIFICATION TO THE HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE SCALES, RATES AND ALL OTHER TARIFF RULES OF EVERY KIND APPLIED TO THE CARRIAGE BY ROAD OF COAL AND STEEL WITHIN THE COMMUNITY FOR HIRE OR REWARD.

Grounds

ARTICLE 88 OF THE ECSC TREATY, ON WHICH THE DECISION CONTESTED BY THE APPLICANT IN THE MAIN ACTION IS BASED, GIVES THE HIGH AUTHORITY ONLY THE POWER TO FIND THAT A STATE HAS FAILED TO FULFIL AN OBLIGATION UNDER THE TREATY AND TO SET A TIME-LIMIT FOR THE FULFILMENT OF ITS OBLIGATION. UNDER THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF THAT ARTICLE THE HIGH AUTHORITY CANNOT ADOPT SANCTIONS AGAINST THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT FOR ANY NON-FULFILMENT OF ITS OBLIGATIONS UNTIL ITS ACTION HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE COURT HAVING JURISDICTION.

IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 39 OF THE TREATY ON THE SUSPENSION OF APPLICATION CANNOT APPLY IN THE PRESENT CASE; IT APPEARS FROM THE TERMS OF THE PROVISION ITSELF THAT IT IS AIMED ONLY AT THE SUSPENSION OF MEASURES OF APPLICATION INITIATED BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY OR WHERE APPROPRIATE THIRD PARTIES AND TAKEN AGAINST THE PERSON CONCERNED.

THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT SHOULD THE MAIN ACTION BE DISMISSED THE HIGH AUTHORITY COULD ADOPT SANCTIONS AGAINST IT WITH RETROACTIVE EFFECT AND THAT FOR THIS REASON THE CLAIM IS JUSTIFIED.

THIS FEAR HOWEVER DOES NOT APPEAR WELL FOUNDED SINCE THE MEASURES PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 88 CANNOT BE RETROACTIVE BY REASON OF THEIR NATURE.

AS A RESULT THE APPLICATION FOR SUSPENSION OF OPERATION MUST BE DISMISSED.

Operative part

1 . THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED;

2 . THE COSTS ARE RESERVED.