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) >> J. Nold, Kohlen und Baustoffgrosshandlung v Ruhrkohle Aktiengesellschaft. [1977] EUECJ C-4/73 (11 January 1977)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1977/C473_rev.html
Cite as: [1977] EUECJ C-4/73

[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.

61973O0004(01)
Order of the Court of 11 January 1977.
J. Nold, Kohlen- und Baustoffgrosshandlung v Ruhrkohle Aktiengesellschaft.
Case 4-73 - Enforcement.
European Court reports 1977 Page 00001

IN CASE 4/73 - ENFORCEMENT
J . NOLD , KOHLEN- UND BAUSTOFFGROSSHANDLUNG , A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP GOVERED BY GERMAN LAW , HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE IN DARMSTADT , REPRESENTED BY ALBRECHT W . HEINZERLING , ADVOCATE , OF THE DARMSTADT BAR , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF ANDRE ELVINGER , 84 GRAND RUE ,
APPLICANT ,
V RUHRKOHLE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT , A LIMITED COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE IN ESSEN , REPRESENTED BY BRUCKHAUS , KREIFELS , WINKHAUS AND LIEBERKNECHT , ADVOCATES , OF THE DUSSELDORF BAR , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF ALEX BONN , 22 COTE D ' EICH ,
DEFENDANT ,

1 THE APPLICATION DOES NOT APPEAR TO COME WITHIN ANY OF THE PROVISIONS DETERMINING THE JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE OF THE COURT .

SINCE THE APPLICANT HAS OMITTED TO PROVIDE ANY INDICATION WHICH WOULD MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO CLASSIFY ITS APPLICATION IN RELATION TO ANY SUCH PROVISIONS THE COURT MUST CLASSIFY IT FROM THE PROCEDURAL POINT OF VIEW IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE SYSTEM LAID DOWN BY THE TREATY , THE STATUTE OF THE COURT ( ECSC ) AND THE RULES OF PROCEDURE .

THIS ARTICLE AND THE ARTICLES , IN PARTICULAR ARTICLES 84 AND 85 , TO WHICH IT REFERS PROVIDE THAT AN APPLICATION OF THIS NATURE , AFTER BEING SERVED ON THE OPPOSITE PARTY AND ANY PREPARATORY INQUIRIES WHICH MAY BE CALLED FOR , SHALL BE ADJUDICATED UPON AS SOON AS POSSIBLE , IN THE FORM OF AN ORDER , BY DECISION EITHER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OR OF THE FULL COURT .

2 SINCE THE PARTIES HAVE MADE WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS THE CASE IS READY FOR JUDGMENT WITHOUT FURTHER INQUIRIES .

HAVING REGARD TO THE QUESTIONS OF PRINCIPLE RAISED BY THE APPLICATION THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT HAS REFERRED THE DECISION TO THE COURT UNDER THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 85 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE .

ADMISSIBILITY
3 ARTICLES 44 AND 92 OF THE ECSC TREATY , ARTICLE 32 OF THE STATUTE OF THE COURT ( ECSC ) AND ARTICLE 74 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE PROVIDE THAT DECISIONS OF THE COURT ON COSTS ARE ENFORCEABLE .

THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 92 OF THE ECSC TREATY PROVIDES THAT ENFORCEMENT IN THE TERRITORY OF MEMBER STATES SHALL BE CARRIED OUT BY MEANS OF THE LEGAL PROCEDURE IN FORCE IN EACH STATE , AFTER THE ORDER FOR ENFORCEMENT IN THE FORM IN USE IN THE STATE IN WHOSE TERRITORY THE DECISION IS TO BE ENFORCED HAS BEEN APPENDED TO THE DECISION , WITHOUT OTHER FORMALITY THAN VERIFICATION OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE DECISION .

SAVE IN THE CASE OF SUSPENSION BY A DECISION OF THE COURT PROVIDED FOR BY THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF THE SAME ARTICLE , THE PROCEDURE FOR ENFORCEMENT COMES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES .

IT IS THEREFORE FOR THOSE AUTHORITIES TO DECIDE ANY QUESTIONS WHICH ENFORCEMENT MAY RAISE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ENFORCEABILITY OF THE DECISIONS IN QUESTION .

IT FOLLOWS THAT THE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO TRY THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE APPLICANT , SINCE THE APPROPRIATE NATIONAL AUTHORITY IS ALONE COMPETENT TO DECIDE ON THE ADMISSIBILITY AND WHERE APPROPRIATE THE MERITS OF SUCH CLAIMS .

4 THE APPLICATION MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE .

COSTS
5 ARTICLE 69 ( 1 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE PROVIDES THAT THE COURT SHALL GIVE A DECISION AS TO COSTS IN ITS FINAL JUDGMENT OR IN THE ORDER WHICH CLOSES THE PROCEEDINGS .

ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) PROVIDES THAT THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS IF THEY HAVE BEEN ASKED FOR IN THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY ' S PLEADING .

SINCE THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL IN ITS ACTION , IT MUST BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS OF THIS APPLICATION .

ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
UPON HEARING THE REPORT OF THE JUDGE-RAPPORTEUR ;

UPON HEARING THE OPINION OF THE ADVOCATE-GENERAL ;

THE COURT
HEREBY :
1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATION ;

2 . ORDERS THE APPLICANT TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE APPLICATION .

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