V Commission of the European Communities

Home , July 1967

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 13 DECEMBER 1973 1

Gesellschaft für Getreidehandel mbH v Commission of the European Communities

Case 24/66 bis

Summary

Procedure — Judgment of the Court — Meaning and scope — Difficulty — Interpretation — Application — Limited to the parties (Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, Article 40)

Interpretation of a judgment can be requested only by the parties.

In Case 24/66 bis,

GESELLSCHAFT FÜR GETREIDEHANDEL MBH, having its registered office in Düsseldorf, represented by O. Brändel, lawyer with the Bundesgerichtshof, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of F. Jansen, huissier de justice, 21 rue Aldringen,

applicant,

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, represented by its legal advisers, C. D. Ehlermann and R. Wägenbaur, as agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of its legal adviser, P. Lamoureux, 4 boulevard Royal,

defendant,

Application for interpretation of the Judgments given by the Court on 1 July 1965 in Joined Cases 106 and 107/63 and 14 July 1967 in Joined Cases 5, 7 and 13 to 24/66,

1 — Language of the Case: German.

1599 JUDGMENT OF 13. 12. 1973 — CASE 24/66 bis

THE COURT composed of: R. Lecourt, President, A. M. Donner (Rapporteur) and M. Søren sen, Presidents of Chambers, R. Monaco, J. Mertens de Wilmars, P. Pescatore, H. Kutscher, C. Ó Dálaigh and A. J. Mackenzie Stuart, Judges,

Advocate-General: G. Reischl Registrar: A. Van Houtte gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

The facts of the case, the subject matter Cases 106 and 107/63 and Joined Cases of the application and the views of the 5, 7 and 13 to 24/66 were informed of parties may be summarized as follows: the application and invited to submit their observations, if any. Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur and the opinion of the I — Facts and procedure Advocate-General, the Court decided to hear the observations of the parties. The Judgment given on 1 July 1965 in Joined Cases 106 and 107/63, Töpfer KG and Getreide-lmport Gesellschaft v II — Subject matter of the Commission of the EEC, (Rec. 1965, p. application 526), annulled the Commission Decision of 3 October 1963 (OJ 1963, p. 2479). The applicant states that the Court, in its By Judgment of 14 July 1967, in Joined Judgment of 14 July 1967, found that Cases 5, 7 and 13 to 24/66, Kampffmeyer the Commission had been guilty of an and others v Commission of the EEC, illegal breach of duty (rechtswidriges (Rec. 1967, p. 318), the Court of Justice Verschulden), arising in the main from dismissed the action for damages and the wrongful application of Article 22 of interest brought against the Commission Regulation No 19/62 of the Council of 4 by the applicant in Case No 24/66. April 1962 (OJ 1962, p. 933), the scope On 31 August 1973 the applicant of which the Commission had failed to submitted an application for interpreta appreciate. However, the Court rejected tion of the said Judgments pursuant to the applicant's submissions, on the Article 40 of the Protocol on the Statute grounds that the detriment allegedly of the Court of Justice of the European suffered had not been defined with Economic Community. sufficient precision. In accordance with Article 102 of the However, before the national court, the Rules of Procedure, the parties to Joined Cologne Oberlandesgericht, the appli-

1600 GETREIDEHANDEL v COMMISSION

cant was able to show that it had in instituted by the applicant on the reality suffered a detriment as a result of grounds of the same facts against the the Commission's Decision of 3 October national authorities charged, within 1963. The Oberlandesgericht accordingly the Federal Republic, with the found that the Federal Republic of organization of the market. Germany was liable. The latter appealed against this Decision to the Bundesge richtshof on a point of law, claiming that III — Observations submit the Decision of the Oberlandesgericht ted under Article 102 was wrongly based on the illegality of of the Rules of the protective measure, approved by the Procedure Commission in its annulled Decision, and on the fault of the relevant national officials. 1. The applicants in Cases 5/66, 7/66, 14/66, 15/66, 19/66 and 21/66 have If it could be established, a priori, that informed the Court that they support the the protective measure decided upon by application for interpretation, which the Federal Republic of Germany and would also be of interest to them. In approved by the Commission had no particular, they emphasize that the legal basis and was therefore illegal, application for interpretation is the Bundesgerichtshof could refuse to concerned with the uniform application consider the appeal on a point of law by national courts of the principles set brought by the Federal Republic of out by the Court in its Judgments of 1 Germany. July 1965 and 14 July 1967. It is for this reason that the applicant requests the Court to: 2. The Commission notes that Article 40 of the Protocol on the Statute of Arrive at a further decision for the the Court of Justice permits the purpose of interpreting the Judgment of interpretation of a judgment only on 14 July 1967 as regards the scope of its application by a party or an institution legal force, and, more particularly, to of the Community which can establish state whether: an interest therein. In view of the fact 1. that Judgment, as well as the that the applicant was not a party to Judgment of 1 July 1965 (Joined Joined Cases 106 and 107/63, the Cases 106 and 107/63), in so far as application for interpretation is inadmissible in so far as it refers to the they affirm that the conditions necessary for the adoption of the Judgment of 1 July 1965. protective measure decided upon by As for the admissibility of the application the Federal Republic of Germany and for interpretation of the Judgment of 14 approved by the Commission by July 1967, the Commission expresses Decision of 3 October 1963 were not doubt. Firstly, the application does not fulfilled, and, satisfy the conditions of Article 102 (1) of the Rules of Procedure, according to 2. the principles enunciated by the which it must state the passages in the Court of Justice regarding the degree judgment, the interpretation of which is of care which must be shown by the sought. Secondly, this application was Commission and the Governments of not made with a view to obtaining a the Member States in adopting definition of the meaning and scope of protective measures pursuant to the judgment in the interests of the Article 22 of Regulation No 19/62 of parties to Joined Cases 5, 7 and 13 to the Council, 24/66, but concerns a third party, have binding effect (bindende namely the Federal Republic of Wirkung) with respect to the German Germany. The Commission refers to the courts in proceedings for damages, case law of the Court in Case 70/63A,

1601 JUDGMENT OF 13. 12. 1973 — CASE 24/66 bis

according to which the applicant should Finally, the Commission states that the base his application for interpretation matters at issue here could be clarified 'not upon disputes regarding the possible by means of an application for a effects of the judgment at issue in cases preliminary ruling pursuant to Article other than that in which it was 177 EEC. pronounced, but upon such obscurity or The hearing was opened on 20 November ambiguity as affects the meaning and 1973. scope of the judgment itself ...'. It may The Advocate-General delivered his therefore be that this application for opinion at the hearing on 29 November interpretation is inadmissible. 1973.

Grounds of judgment

1 By application submitted on 31 August 1973, the applicant in Case 24/66 requested, pursuant to Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Economic Community, an interpretation of the Judgment of 1 July 1965, given in Joined Cases 106 and 107/63 (Rec. 1965, p. 526) and of the interlocutory Judgment of 14 July 1967 given in Joined Cases 5, 7 and 13 to 24/66 (Rec. 1967, p. 318).

2 The application is for the interpretation of the extent of the legal force of these Judgments, in particular with regard to the question whether they have binding effect on national courts, in that

1. they affirmed that the conditions necessary for the adoption of the protective measure decided upon by the Federal Republic of Germany and approved by the Commission by Decision of 3 October 1963 had not been fulfilled and

2. they established the principles with relation to the degree of care which Community or national authorities must show in adopting protective measures pursuant to Article 22 of Regulation No 19/62 of the Council (OJ 1962, p. 933).

3 As for the first part of the application, the Judgment of 14 July 1967, given in the action brought by the applicant and other parties, contained no finding as to the illegality of the Commission's Decision of 3 October 1963, being merely concerned to define the consequences of the Judgment of 1 July 1965, which annulled that Decision with general effect.

1602 GETREIDEHANDEL v COMMISSION

Accordingly, the first part of the application refers substantially to the effects of the Judgment of 1 July 1965.

However, since the applicant was not a party to the case in which this Judgment was given, Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice thereby renders its application for interpretation inadmissible.

4 The second part of the application seeks a definition of the binding effect which a judgment given by the Court in an action for noncontractual liability on the part of the Community could have upon parallel actions before national courts against the Federal Republic of Germany.

Since this concerns proceedings between different parties, the definition requested does not concern the scope of the Judgment as regards the relationship between the parties thereto, and may not accordingly be sought under Article 40 of the Statute.

5 It must therefore be concluded that the second part of the application is also inadmissible.

Costs

6 Under the terms of Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party shall be ordered to pay the costs.

The applicant has been unsuccessful in its pleas.

Accordingly it is ordered to pay the costs.

On those grounds,

Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the oral observations of the parties; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Economic Community, especially Article 40;

1603 OPINION OF MR REISCHL — CASE 24/66 bis

Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, especially Articles 69 and 102;

THE COURT

hereby:

1. Rejects the application for interpretation as inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

Lecourt Donner Sørensen Monaco Mertens de Wilmars

Pescatore Kutscher Ó Dálaigh Mackenzie Stuart

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 13 December 1973.

A. Van Houtte R. Lecourt

Registrar President

OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE-GENERAL REISCHL

DELIVERED ON 29 NOVEMBER 1973 1

Mr President, Under the terms of this application the Members of the Court, Court is requested to interpret the Judgment of 14 July 1967 in cases 5, 7 The Gesellschaft für Getreidehandel and 13 to 24/66 (Firma E. Kampffmeyer and 13 other applicants v Commission of mbH of Düsseldorf (formerly the the EEC, Rec. 1967, p. 332) 'as regards Gesellschaft für Getreidehandel AG) the scope of its legal force' and, more made an application on 31 August 1973 particularly, to state whether: for interpretation of a judgment pursuant to Article 40 of the Protocol on 1. 'that Judgment, as well as the the Statute of the Court of Justice of the Judgment of 1 July 1965 (Joined European Economic Community. Cases 106 and 107/63), in so far as

1 — Translated from the German.

1604