BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

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) >> Societe Rhenania and others v Commission of the EEC. [1964] EUECJ C-103/63 (2 July 1964)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1964/C10363.html
Cite as: [1964] EUECJ C-103/63

[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.
   

61963J0103
Judgment of the Court of 2 July 1964.
Société Rhenania and others v Commission of the European Economic Community.
Case 103/63.
European Court reports
French edition 1964 Page 00839
Dutch edition 1964 Page 00877
German edition 1964 Page 00915
Italian edition 1964 Page 00833
English special edition 1964 Page 00425
Danish special edition 1954-1964 Page 00513
Greek special edition 1954-1964 Page 01151
Portuguese special edition 1962-1964 Page 00505

 
   







++++
IN CASE 103/63
RHENANIA, SCHIFFAHRTS - UND SPEDITIONS - GESELLSCHAFT MBH, MANNHEIM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGERS, MESSRS FREIMUTH, SCHARLACH AND HANS VOIGHT,
RHENUS, GESELLSCHAFT FUR SCHIFFAHRT, SPEDITION UND LAGEREI MBH, FRANKFURT ON MAIN, HAFENSTRASSE 1, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGERS, MESSRS WILHELM KIRCHGASSER AND LUDWIG ROSSING,
WESTFALISCHE TRANSPORT-AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, DORTMUND, MALINCKRODT-STRASSE 320, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTORS, MESSRS FRIEDRICH G MULLER, MANAGING DIRECTOR, AND WOLFGANG DIX, ASSISTED BY MESSRS . DRES, MODEST, HEEMAN, MENSEN, GUNDISCH, BINDER AND BRANDEL, ADVOCATES OF HAMBURG 39, SIERICHSTRASSE 78, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF FELICIEN JANSEN, HUISSIER DE JUSTICE, 21 RUE DE ALDRINGER, APPLICANTS,
V
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY, REPRESENTED BY CLAUS-DIETER EHLERMANN, MEMBER OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE EUROPEAN EXECUTIVES, ACTING AS AGENT, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICES OF HENRI MANZANARES, SECRETARY OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE EUROPEAN EXECUTIVES, 2 PLACE DE METZ, DEFENDANT,



APPLICATION CONCERNING THE POSSIBLE DEFAULT OF THE COMMISSION IN FAILING TO PUT INTO OPERATION AS RESPECTS THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 169 OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY CONCERNING THE FIXING OF DERIVED INTERVENTION PRICES OF CEREALS,



DURING THE ORAL PROCEDURE THE APPLICANTS FIRST OF ALL EXPLAINED THAT THE LETTER WHICH THE DEFENDANT SENT TO THEM ON 25 NOVEMBER 1963 HAD SATISFIED THEIR FIRST PRINCIPAL REQUEST, WHICH WAS THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER THEIR LETTER OF 31 JULY 1963 AND INFORM THEM OF THE RESULT OF SUCH CONSIDERATION .
THE APPLICANTS WERE THUS IN FACT INFORMED ON 25 NOVEMBER 1963 THAT THE COMMISSION'S DEPARTMENTS HAD BEGUN TO CONSIDER THE QUESTIONS RAISED ON 31 JULY 1963 AND THAT THE RESULT OF SUCH CONSIDERATION WOULD BE SENT TO THEM LATER .
IN THE SECOND PLACE, DURING THE ORAL PROCEDURE AND AFTER THE DEFENDANT'S ORAL ADDRESS, THE APPLICANTS STATED THAT THEY HAD ACHIEVED THE OBJECT OF THEIR SECOND PRINCIPAL REQUEST, PROCEEDINGS HAVING BEEN INSTITUTED UNDER ARTICLE 169 BY THE COMMISSION AGAINST THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY IN RESPECT OF THE MATTER IN DISPUTE .
IT THUS FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT THE PRINCIPAL REQUESTS OF THE APPLICANTS HAVE NO FURTHER PURPOSE AND CONSEQUENTLY THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO ADJUDICATE UPON THEM .



IN ADDITION TO THE PRINCIPAL REQUESTS, THE APPLICATION ASKS THAT THE DEFENDANTS BE ORDERED TO BEAR THE COSTS . THE APPLICANTS STATED THAT THEY WOULD NOT WITHDRAW THEIR APPLICATION IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE COURT TO DECIDE UPON THIS QUESTION .
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WORDING OF ARTICLE 69 ( 5 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE COSTS SHALL BE IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT WHERE A CASE DOES NOT PROCEED TO JUDGMENT .
WITHOUT HAVING TO CONSIDER TO WHAT EXTENT THE APPLICATION WAS ADMISSIBLE AND WELL FOUNDED, THE COURT FINDS, GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE COURSE TAKEN BY THE PROCEEDINGS, SUFFICIENT GROUND TO DECIDE THAT THE PARTIES MUST BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .



THE COURT
HEREBY RULES :
1 . THE ISSUES IN THE CASE HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OF;
2 . THE PARTIES SHALL BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .

 
  © European Communities, 2001 All rights reserved

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1964/C10363.html