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 25 June 1964. # Alfred Toepfer and Getreide-Import Gesellschaft v Commission of the EEC. # Joined cases 106 and 107-63.

ECLI:EU:C:1964:50

61963CO0106

June 25, 1964
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

61963O0106

European Court reports French edition Page 00553 Dutch edition Page 00538 German edition Page 00578 Italian edition Page 00525 English special edition Page 00429 Danish special edition Page 00087 Portuguese special edition Page 00141 Spanish special edition Page 00231

Parties

IN JOINED CASES 106/63 ALFRED TOEPFER, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, WHOSE REGISTERED OFFICE IS AT HAMBURG, REPRESENTED BY AUGUST SCHULZ, ITS SPECIAL COMMERCIAL AGENT, AND 107/63 GETREIDE-IMPORT GESELLSCHAFT, A LIMITED COMPANY, WHOSE REGISTERED OFFICE IS AT DUISBURG, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGERS WILHELM SPECHT AND WILHELM BREDER, ASSISTED BY WALTER HEMPEL OF THE HAMBURG BAR AND MR REDEKER OF THE BONN BAR ( FOR CASE 107/63 ONLY ), BOTH WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF GEORGES REUTER, AVOCAT-AVOUE, 7 AVENUE DE L ' ARSENAL, APPLICANTS, V COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY, REPRESENTED BY CLAUS-DIETER EHLERMANN, A MEMBER OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE EUROPEAN EXECUTIVES, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICES OF HENRI MANZANARES, SECRETARY OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE EUROPEAN EXECUTIVES, 2 PLACE DE METZ, DEFENDANT,

Grounds

WHEREAS IN ITS APPLICATION LODGED ON 21 FEBRUARY 1964 THE DEFENDANT REQUESTED THE COURT TO DECIDE ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF APPLICATIONS 106/63 AND 107/63 AS A PRELIMINARY POINT, TO DISMISS THE PRINCIPAL APPLICATIONS AS INADMISSIBLE AND TO ORDER THE APPLICANTS TO BEAR THE COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS; WHEREAS IN ITS STATEMENT IN REPLY LODGED ON 13 APRIL 1964 THE APPLICANTS REQUESTED THE COURT TO DISMISS THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE DEFENDANT FOR A PRELIMINARY DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE PRINCIPAL APPLICATIONS OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO RESERVE ITS DECISION FOR THE FINAL JUDGMENT; WHEREAS THE ORAL PROCEDURE CONCERNING THE OBJECTION OF INADMISSIBILITY TOOK PLACE ON 28 MAY 1964; WHEREAS THE ADVOCATE-GENERAL, IN HIS OPINION DELIVERED ON 11 JUNE 1964, SUGGESTED TO THE COURT THAT IT SHOULD NOT GIVE JUDGMENT ON THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE DEFENDANT UNTIL AFTER THE PROCEDURE RELATING TO SUBSTANCE HAD BEEN COMPLETED; WHEREAS AT THIS STAGE IN THE PROCEEDINGS IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE TO FOLLOW THIS SUGGESTION BECAUSE THE ELEMENTS OF THE PROBLEM OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE PRINCIPAL APPLICATIONS APPEAR TO BE INTERRELATED WITH THOSE FOR WHICH AN EVALUATION IS NECESSARY WHEN THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE IS EXAMINED;

Operative part

1 . THE DECISION ON THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE DEFENDANT IS RESERVED FOR THE FINAL JUDGMENT; 2 . THE COSTS ARE RESERVED .

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