P . 169
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 38 OF THE STATUTE OF THE COURT ANNEXED TO THE ECSC TREATY AND OF ARTICLE 100 ( 1 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE COURT SITTING IN THE DELIBERATION ROOM IS REQUIRED AS A PRELIMINARY MATTER TO GIVE IN THE FORM OF A JUDGMENT ITS DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION .
THE APPLICATION WAS MADE IN DUE TIME AND IN PROPER FORM .
THE APPLICANT PLEADS INFRINGEMENT OF ARTICLES 29 AND 30 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE . ITS ARGUMENT IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT IN CASE 23/59 THE DEFENDANT, UPON BEING CALLED UPON TO DO SO BY THE COURT, LODGED WITH THE REGISTRY CERTAIN DOCUMENTS DRAWN UP IN LANGUAGES OTHER THAN THE LANGUAGE OF THE CASE AND WHICH WERE NOT TRANSLATED INTO THAT LANGUAGE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMUNICATING THEM TO THE APPLICANT . IT IS ARGUED THAT THEREFORE THE APPLICANT WAS NOT ABLE TO REFER TO DOCUMENTS WHICH COULD HAVE SUPPLIED IT WITH ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE .
THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 38 OF THE STATUTE OF THE COURT PROVIDES THAT 'AN APPLICATION FOR REVISION OF A JUDGMENT MAY BE MADE TO THE COURT ONLY ON DISCOVERY OF A FACT WHICH IS OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO BE A DECISIVE FACTOR AND WHICH, WHEN THE JUDGMENT WAS GIVEN, WAS UNKNOWN TO THE COURT AND TO THE PARTY CLAIMING THE REVISION '.
THE DOCUMENTS IN QUESTION WERE LODGED AT THE REGISTRY BEFORE THE ORAL PROCEDURE HAD ENDED AND THEREFORE THEY WERE KNOWN TO THE COURT BEFORE JUDGMENT WAS GIVEN . THE FACT THAT A DOCUMENT DRAWN UP IN ONE OF THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGES OF THE COMMUNITY IS PRODUCED MEANS THAT THE COURT HAS KNOWLEDGE NOT MERELY OF ITS EXISTENCE BUT ALSO OF ITS CONTENTS . FOR, LIKE ALL THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE THREE COMMUNITIES, THE COURT IS COGNIZANT OF FOUR LANGUAGES BY VIRTUE OF AN IRREBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION OF LAW . THE PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE LANGUAGES OF THE CASE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY :
( A ) BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE OF THE CASE IS THE LANGUAGE OF THE DEFENDANT UNLESS THE LATTER IS ONE OF THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE THREE COMMUNITIES;
( B ) BECAUSE BOTH AT THE JOINT REQUEST OF THE PARTIES AND AT THE REQUEST OF ONE OF THE PARTIES WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE OTHER PARTY BEING NECESSARY THE COURT MAY AUTHORIZE THE USE OF AN OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OTHER THAN THE LANGUAGE OF THE CASE .
THEREFORE, THE FIRST FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENT LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 38 ( DISCOVERY OF A FACT UNKNOWN NOT ONLY TO THE PARTY APPLYING FOR THE REVISION, BUT ALSO TO THE COURT ) IS NOT MET IN THE PRESENT CASE .
MOREOVER THE JUDGMENT OF WHICH REVISION IS CLAIMED IS NOT BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS IN QUESTION EXCEPT FOR THE LETTER FROM MR SPIERENBURG, VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY, OF 24 FEBRUARY 1958 . NONE THE LESS, THE JUDGMENT REFERRED TO THAT DOCUMENT IN ORDER TO REJECT AN ARGUMENT WHICH THE APPLICANT HAD DEDUCED FROM THAT LETTER, THUS SHOWING THAT THE APPLICANT HAD A PERFECT UNDERSTANDING OF IT .
THEREFORE THE SECOND REQUIREMENT LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 38 ( DISCOVERY OF A FACT OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO BE A DECISIVE FACTOR ) IS NOT MET EITHER .
THE RESULT OF THE FOREGOING IS, THEREFORE, THAT THE APPLICATION FOR REVISION MADE BY THE FERAM UNDERTAKING IS NOT ADMISSIBLE .
IN ANY EVENT THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION OF AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHTS OF THE DEFENCE BECAUSE AFTER HAVING RAISED THE QUESTION AND HAVING HEARD THE CLARIFICATION OF THE PRESIDENT, THE ADVOCATE OF THE APPLICANT DID NOT ASK THE COURT FOR THE ORAL ARGUMENTS TO BE POSTPONED AND FOR THE ITALIAN TRANSLATIONS TO BE PRODUCED, WHICH HE CERTAINLY COULD HAVE DONE DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING .
FINALLY, THE COURT EXPRESSES ITS DISAPPROVAL OF THE OFFENSIVE WORDING USED IN THE APPLICATION AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, AND IN PARTICULAR OF THE ACCUSATION, FOR WHICH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, THAT THERE WAS AN IMPROPER MOTIVE BASED ON A DESIRE TO PREVENT THE APPLICANT FROM UNDERSTANDING THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENTS IN QUESTION .
UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS . IN THE PRESENT CASE THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED ON THE ISSUE OF ADMISSIBILITY AND MUST THEREFORE BEAR THE COSTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS .
THE COURT
HEREBY :
1 . DECLARES THAT THE APPLICATION IS INADMISSIBLE;
2 . ORDERS THE APPLICANT TO BEAR THE COSTS .
