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) >> Krupp Stahl AG v Commission of the European Communities [1981] EUECJ C-123/81 (14 October 1981)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1981/C123C81.html
Cite as: [1981] EUECJ C-123/81

[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.

61981O0123
Order of the Court of 14 October 1981.
Krupp Stahl AG v Commission of the European Communities.
Affaires 123/81 and 123/81 R.
European Court reports 1981 Page 02391

KRUPP STAHL AG , BOCHUM ,
APPLICANT ,
V
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ,
DEFENDANT .

IN CASES 123/81 AND 123/81 R , THE COMMISSION ADOPTED A DECISION WHICH WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WISHES OF THE APPLICANT , WHICH THEN INFORMED THE COURT IN A LETTER RECEIVED AT THE REGISTRY ON 2 JULY 1981 THAT IT WAS NO LONGER NECESSARY TO GIVE JUDGMENT IN THE MAIN ACTION OR , CONSEQUENTLY , ON THE APPLICATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES . IT NONE THE LESS SOUGHT AN ORDER FOR COSTS AGAINST THE COMMISSION , ARGUING THAT THE COMMISSION ' S DELAY IN ADOPTING ITS DECISION WAS AT THE ROOT OF THE ACTION AND THAT THE DECISION FINALLY ADOPTED HAD RECOGNIZED THAT THE APPLICATIONS WERE WELL FOUNDED .

IN ITS OBSERVATIONS LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 14 JULY 1981 THE COMMISSION STATED THAT IT WAS NOT OPPOSED TO WHAT IT REGARDED AS AN APPLICATION TO DISCONTINUE THE ACTION ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT , BUT IT SOUGHT AN ORDER FOR COSTS AGAINST THE APPLICANT . IN SUPPORT OF THAT CLAIM THE COMMISSION ARGUED THAT THE DELAY IN THE ADOPTION OF ITS FINAL DECISION WAS DUE TO THE APPLICANT ' S OWN CONDUCT .

IT IS TRUE THAT BY A LETTER DATED 16 MARCH 1981 THE APPLICANT INFORMED THE COMMISSION THAT IT DESIRED THE COMMISSION TO RECOGNIZE THAT ITS PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY WAS GREATER THAT THAT USED FOR THE CALCULATION OF THE QUOTAS FOR THE FIRST QUARTER OF 1981 . HOWEVER , THAT REQUEST WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT IN A LETTER DATED 15 APRIL . ALTHOUGH THE COMMISSION HAS NOT PLEADED THE EXISTENCE OF ANY OTHER FACTOR LIABLE TO PREVENT IT FROM ADOPTING A DECISION WITHOUT DELAY , IT WAS NOT UNTIL 26 MAY 1981 THAT IT FIXED DEFINITIVE QUOTAS FOR THE APPLICANT FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF 1981 . IT WAS PRECISELY THAT DELAY WHICH INDUCED THE APPLICANT TO LODGE THE PRESENT APPLICATIONS , WHICH SINCE THE ADOPTION OF THE COMMISSION ' S DECISION HAVE LOST THEIR PURPOSE .

IT FOLLOWS THAT THE APPLICANT ' S DISCONTINUANCE IS JUSTIFIED BY THE CONDUCT OF THE COMMISSION AND THAT THERE IS REASON TO ORDER THE LATTER TO PAY THE COSTS PURSUANT TO THE FIRST SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 69 ( 4 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE .

1 . CASES 123/81 AND 123/81 R ARE REMOVED FROM THE REGISTER .

2.THE COMMISSION SHALL PAY THE COSTS , INCLUDING THE COSTS OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES .

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