Judgment_paragraph 1. · "Geitling" Ruhrkohlen-Verkaufsgesellschaft mbH, "Mausegatt" Ruhrkohlen-Verkaufsgesellschaft mbH "Präsident" Ruhrkohlen-Verkaufsgesellschaft mbH and associated companies v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community (C-16/59, C-17/59, C-18/59)

1.Claims 1 to 6 (relating to the grounds of Decision No 17/59 and to the letter of 21 February 1959).The defendant considers the claims by the applicants to be inadmissible for the following reasons:(a) Since the High Authority has extended the agreements by a year, it has already to this extent satisfied the applicants' claims who accordingly have in no way suffered damage.(b) Since only the operative part of a decision is binding (Articles 14 and 15 of the Treaty) and not the statement of the grounds thereof, the latter cannot be the subject of an application for annulment.(c) By publishing the general principles on the basis of which a future, comprehensive restructuring of the Ruhr coal marketing should take place, the High Authority has created no rule applicable to a particular case. According to the case-law of the Court (Joined Cases 1/57 and 14/57, Rec. 1957, pp. 221 to 223) general principles cannot be the subject of an application for annulment.The applicants counter that the application is admissible on the basis of Articles 33 and 80 of the Treaty.(a) The contested provisions are decisions within the meaning of Articles 33 and 14 of the Treaty.According to the case-law of the Court (Case 8/55, Rec. 1955-1956, pp. 224 and 225, and Joined Cases 1/57 and 14/57, Rec. 1957, pp. 219 to 223) there is a decision within the meaning of Article 14 of the Treaty where the High Authority expresses its intention in the statement of grounds not to extend beyond 31 March 1960 or 31 March 1961 the authorizations already granted and to take measures to prevent a single marketing system on the basis of similar organizations (Claims 1 to 3).The conditions set out in the letter of 21 February 1959 for the issue of a new authorization in accordance with Article 65 of the Treaty (Claims 4 to 6) must also be regarded as a decision, for in so far as the High Authority expresses its intention not to issue authorizations in particular circumstances, it makes quite clear what its attitude will be in certain circumstances and it is laying down rules which can be applied in given cases.(b) The contested decision is an individual decision since it directly concerns the applicants, it has been notified to them and contains directions which are intended to apply solely to a particular and limited section of the mining undertakings of the common market.(c) The defendant wrongly denies the existence of damage and of legal interest on the part of the applicants. They certainly had an interest in obtaining an annulment since this was the only way in which a declaration, which might possibly in future be an obstacles to the establishment of a marketing organization, could be prevented from having legal force.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court

Court of Justice · Full Court

Cases

C-16/59, C-17/59, C-18/59 · ECLI:EU:C:1960:5

Decided

12 Feb 1960

Procedure

Action for annulment

Applicant

1.GEITLING RUHRKOLHLEN-VERKAUFSGESELLSCHAFT MBH having its registered office in Essen (Case 16/59),2.MAUSEGATT RUHRKOHLEN-VERKAUFSGESELLSCHAFT MBH having its registered office in Essen (Case 17/59),3.PRÄSIDENT RUHRKOHLEN-VERKAUFSGESELLSCHAFT MBH having its registered office in Essen (Case 18/59),each represented by its manager,4.THE MINING COMPANIES OF THE RUHR BASIN, members of the aforesaid selling agences and represented by them,assisted by Hans Hengeler and Dr Werner von Simson, both Advocates at the Düsseldorf Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Dr Werner von Simson, at Bertrange

Defendant

HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY

Rapporteur

L. Delvaux

Advocate General

Lagrange

Bench

3 judges

L. Delvaux, R. Rossi Presidents of Chambers, N. Catalano

Language

German

Official

CURIA · EUR-Lex 61959CJ0016

"Geitling" Ruhrkohlen-Verkaufsgesellschaft mbH, "Mausegatt" Ruhrkohlen-Verkaufsgesellschaft mbH "Präsident" Ruhrkohlen-Verkaufsgesellschaft mbH and associated companies v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community (C-16/59, C-17/59, C-18/59)

Key facts

Connections

History · 1 version