JUDGMENT OF 4. 7. 1963 — CASE 12/63 SCHLIEKER v HIGH AUTHORITY

In Case 12/63

THE COURT composed of: A. M. Donner, President, L. Delvaux and R. Lecourt (Rapporteur), (Presidents of Chambers), Ch. L. Hammes, R. Rossi, A. Trabucchi and W. Strauß, Judges, Advocate-General: K. Roemer Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Facts

II — Conclusions of the parties

III — Arguments of the parties on the preliminary objection of inadmissibility

IV — Procedure

Grounds of judgment

I —. Facts

II —. Conclusions of the parties

III —. Arguments of the parties on the preliminary objection of inadmissibility

1. The High Authority raises the question whether the memorandum of 11 February 1963 makes the issue and the submissions sufficiently clear.

2. The High Authority contends that the applicant's conclusions are inadmissible on the ground that under Community procedure a judgment may not prescribe a particular course of conduct or lay down a particular decision for adoption by the High Authority (objection, p. 2, point 2); the High Authority considers moreover that the submissions made against it are inconclusive; that it cannot in fact annul agreements governed by private law but merely find that they are void within the meaning of Article 65 of the Treaty; that it cannot order that the previously existing state of affairs be restored, Mrs Schlieker's implied reference to Article 66 (5) of the Treaty being neither relevant nor in law sufficiently elaborated (objection, p. 3, point 3).

3. The High Authority stresses tnat Mrs Schlieker, not being an undertaking within the meaning of the Treaty, cannot proceed under Article 35, any more than she could have done under Article 33 against the letter of 21 December 1962, the latter moreover not being an actionable decision for the purposes of the Treaty (application, pp. 3 and 4, points 4 and 5).

IV —. Procedure

On those grounds, Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the parties; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to Articles 33, 35, 65, 66 and 80 of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Coal and Steel Community, especially Article 22; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure or the Court of justice of the European Communities, especially Articles 29, 38, 39 and 69 (2); THE COURT hereby:

I Rules that the application of Mrs Marga Schlieker is inadmissible;

2 Orders the applicant to pay the costs.