Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) >> High Authority of the ECSC v Umberto Collotti and Court of Justice of the European Communities. [1965] EUECJ C-70/63 (7 April 1965)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1965/C7063_rev.html
Cite as: [1965] EUECJ C-70/63

[New search] [Help]

IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The source of this judgment is the web site of the Court of Justice of the European Communities. The information in this database has been provided free of charge and is subject to a Court of Justice of the European Communities disclaimer and a copyright notice. This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment.

61963J0070(01)
Judgment of the Court of 7 April 1965.
High Authority of the ECSC v Umberto Collotti and Court of Justice of the European Communities.
Case 70-63 bis.
European Court reports
French edition 1965 Page 00353
Dutch edition 1965 Page 00346
German edition 1965 Page 00374
Italian edition 1965 Page 00344
English special edition 1965 Page 00275
Danish special edition 1965-1968 Page 00455
Greek special edition 1965-1968 Page 00083
Portuguese special edition 1965-1968 Page 00091

++++
COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ECSC - JUDGMENTS - INTERPRETATION - PURPOSE
( STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ECSC, ARTICLE 37 )

TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 37 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ECSC, A PERSON MAKING AN APPLICATION FOR INTERPRETATION OF A JUDGMENT MUST BASE HIS ARGUMENT NOT ON CONTROVERSIES RELATING TO THE POSSIBLE EFFECT OF THE JUDGMENT IN QUESTION ON CASES OTHER THAN THAT ON WHICH A RULING HAS BEEN GIVEN BUT ON THE OBSCURITY OR AMBIGUITY AFFECTING THE MEANING OR SCOPE OF THE JUDGMENT ITSELF IN SETTLING THE PARTICULAR CASE BEFORE THE COURT .
CF . SUMMARY, PARAS . 2 AND 4, IN CASE 5/55, ( 1954/1955 ) ECR 268 .

IN CASE 70/63 A
HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE ECSC, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, RAYMOND BAEYENS, ACTING AS AGENT, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT ITS OFFICES, 2 PLACE DE METZ,
APPLICANT,
V
1 ) UMBERTO COLLOTTI, THE RETIRED HEAD OF THE LANGUAGE DEPARTMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, RESIDING IN TURIN, ASSISTED BY FERNAND PROBST, ADVOCATE OF THE LUXEMBOURG BAR, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF HIS COUNSEL, 26 AVENUE DE LA LIBERTE,
2 ) COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, ALBERT VAN HOUTTE, ACTING AS AGENT, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE COURT, 12 RUE DE LA COTE D' EICH,
DEFENDANTS,

APPLICATION FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF THE JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 7 JULY 1964 IN CASE 70/63;

P.279
I - ADMISSIBILITY
THE HIGH AUTHORITY, STATING THAT ' THERE IS DOUBT AS TO THE MEANING OR SCOPE OF CERTAIN OF THE GROUNDS OF THE JUDGMENT ' OF 7 JULY 1964 IN CASE 70/63, HAS APPLIED TO THE COURT TO RULE WHETHER THE GROUNDS APPEARING AT B3 OF THE JUDGMENT ' HAVE THE EFFECT OF A PRINCIPLE, CONSEQUENTLY EXTENDING IN THEIR APPLICATION BEYOND THE PARTICULAR CASE GOVERNED BY THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE JUDGMENT '.
THE HIGH AUTHORITY CLAIMS THAT THE ESSENTIAL GROUNDS FORMING THE BASIS FOR THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE JUDGMENT HAVE GIVEN RISE TO TWO OPPOSING ARGUMENTS AND HAVE THUS CREATED A DOUBT AS TO INTERPRETATION . ACCORDING TO ONE VIEW, THE ANNULMENT OF AN INDIVIDUAL MEASURE IN LITIGATION WHERE THE COURT HAS UNLIMITED JURISDICTION MAY ONLY TO A RELATIVE EXTENT HAVE THE FORCE OF RES JUDICATA .
ACCORDING TO THE SECOND VIEW, THERE MIGHT BE DEDUCED FROM THE GENERAL WORDING OF THE JUDGMENT THE RECOGNITION OF A RIGHT FOR ALL SERVANTS WHOSE CLASSIFICATION WAS ALTERED BY THE ENTRY INTO FORCE ON 1 JANUARY 1962 OF ANNEX I TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS TO HAVE THE SENIORITY ACQUIRED IN THEIR FORMER GRADE CARRIED FORWARD INTO THEIR NEW GRADE .
UNDER ARTICLE 37 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ECSC, AN APPLICATION FOR INTERPRETATION OF A JUDGMENT IS CONDITIONAL FIRST ON THERE BEING A DOUBT AS TO THE MEANING OR SCOPE OF A JUDGMENT AND SECONDLY ON AN APPLICATION BEING MADE BY ANY PARTY OR ANY INSTITUTION OF THE COMMUNITY ESTABLISHING AN INTEREST THEREIN . TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF THESE PROVISIONS, A PERSON MAKING AN APPLICATION FOR INTERPRETATION OF A JUDGMENT MUST BASE HIS ARGUMENT NOT ON CONTROVERSIES RELATING TO THE POSSIBLE EFFECT OF THE JUDGMENT IN QUESTION ON CASES OTHER THAN THAT ON WHICH A RULING HAS BEEN GIVEN, BUT ON THE OBSCURITY OR AMBIGUITY AFFECTING THE MEANING OR SCOPE OF THE JUDGMENT ITSELF IN SETTLING THE PARTICULAR CASE BEFORE THE COURT .
THIS IS NOT THE CASE IN THIS INSTANCE; IT HAS NOT BEEN ALLEGED THAT, IN GIVING A RULING SOLELY ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF AN OFFICIAL MAKING THE APPLICATION, THE JUDGMENT LEFT OBSCURE THE METHOD BY WHICH THE SAID OFFICIAL MUST BE CLASSIFIED . MOREOVER THAT FINDING IS CONFIRMED BY THE DECLARATION OF THE APPLICANT IN CASE 70/63, ACCORDING TO WHICH HE HAS NO PERSONAL INTEREST IN THE APPLICATION FOR INTERPRETATION . THE PURPOSE OF THE QUESTION PUT BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY IS THEREFORE NOT TO CLARIFY THE SCOPE OF THE JUDGMENT IN CASE 70/63 BUT TO OBTAIN AN EXPRESSION OF THE OPINION OF THE COURT ON THE GENERAL QUESTION OF LEGAL AUTHORITY OF ITS JUDGMENTS . BY THIS FACT ALONE THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 37 FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF AN APPLICATION FOR INTERPRETATION OF A JUDGMENT HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH .

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ECSC, THE COURT SHALL ADJUDICATE UPON COSTS .
SINCE THE HIGH AUTHORITY HAS INSTITUTED PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT DUE CAUSE, IT MUST BEAR THE ENTIRE COSTS .

THE COURT
HEREBY :
1 . RULES THAT APPLICATION 70/63 A FOR INTERPRETATION OF A JUDGMENT IS INADMISSIBLE;
2 . ORDERS THE COSTS OF THE ACTION TO BE BORNE BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE ECSC .

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010