61958O0003

++++

IN CASES

3/58 - BARBARA ERZBERGBAU AG,

4/58 - GEWERKSCHAFT LOUISE,

5/58 - HERZ-LAHN-ERZBERGBAU AG,

6/58 - MANNESMANN AG,

7/58 - ERZBERGBAU SIEGERLAND AG,

8/58 - ERZBERGBAU STAUFENSTOLLN GMBH, INTERVENER : LAND OF BADEN-WURTTEMBERG

9/58 - HESSISCHE BERG - UND HUTTENWERKE AG,

10/58 - STAHLWERKE SUDWESTFALEN AG,

11/58 - HUTTENWERKE SIEGERLAND AG,

12/58 - FRIEDRICHSHUTTE AG,

13/58 - EISERFELDERHUTTE GMBH,

14/58 - NIEDERDREISBACHERHUTTE GMBH,

15/58 - GEWERKSCHAFT GRUNEBACHER HUTTE,

16/58 - BIRLENBACHER HUTTE SCHLEIFENBAUM & CO . KG,

18/58 - ILSEDER HUTTE AG,

25/58 - HUTTENWERK SALZGITTER AG,

26/58 - LUITPOLDHUTTE AG,

ALL REPRESENTED BY THEIR BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OR BY THEIR MANAGERS, ASSISTED BY HEINRICH LIETZMANN, BARRISTER-AT-LAW, ESSEN, IN CASES 3 TO 16/58, 25 AND 26/58, AND BY LUDWIG RAISER, PROFESSOR OF LAW AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TUBINGEN IN CASE 18/58, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF A . WOOPEN, 2 RUE DU FORT-ELIZABETH, APPLICANTS

LAND OF BADE-WURTTEMBERG REPRESENTED BY THE ACTING MINISTER-PRESIDENT AND THE MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, ASSISTED BY JOSEPH H . KAISER, PROFESSOR OF LAW AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG, INTERVENER,

V

HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, W . MUCH, ACTING AS AGENT, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT ITS SEAT, 2 PLACE DE METZ, DEFENDANT,

P . 223

DURING THE COURSE OF THE PRESENT PROCEDURE IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DECIDE WHETHER AND IN WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES AN INTERVENER MAY CLAIM A STAY OF EXECUTION, AND IT IS SUFFICIENT TO NOTE THAT IN JUDGING WHETHER THE REQUESTS IN QUESTION ARE WELL-FOUNDED IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE REQUEST OF THE LAND OF BADEN-WURTTEMBERG TO INTERVENE IN CASE 8/58 .

THE REQUESTS FOR A STAY OF EXECUTION HAVE BEEN LODGED LESS THAN SIX WEEKS BEFORE 10 MAY 1960, THE DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT ON THE SUBSTANCE IS TO BE PUBLISHED .

THE APPLICANTS RELY ON THE FACT THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NOW RESOLVED TO EXECUTE THE DECISIONS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY OF 9 FEBRUARY 1958, AS IT HAS LONG BEEN REQUIRED TO DO, AS APPEARS FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF 8 MARCH 1960 IN CASE 3/59 .

FROM THE TIME WHEN THE ABOVEMENTIONED DECISIONS WERE ADOPTED THE APPLICANTS COULD HAVE EXPECTED THEM TO BE EXECUTED AND AS FROM THAT TIME THEY COULD HAVE LODGED A REQUEST FOR A STAY OF EXECUTION WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED .

IN PRINCIPLE, IT IS FOR AN APPLICANT TO DECIDE WHETHER IT IS APPROPRIATE TO LODGE A REQUEST FOR A STAY OF EXECUTION, AND TO DECIDE AT WHAT STAGE OF THE PROCEDURE TO LODGE IT .

HOWEVER, THERE ARE OBVIOUS OBJECTIONS TO GRANTING SUCH A REQUEST WHEN IT IS LODGED AFTER THE WRITTEN PROCEDURE HAS COME TO AN END AND AFTER THE ORAL PROCEDURE ON THE SUBSTANCE, AT A TIME WHEN THE COURT HAS ALREADY COMMENCED ITS DELIBERATIONS ON THE JUDGMENT ON THE SUBSTANCE .

MOREOVER, AS THE DEFENDANT HAS ALSO OBSERVED, IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE EXECUTION OF THE DECISIONS OF 9 FEBRUARY 1958 WILL NOT IMMEDIATELY PROVOKE DISADVANTAGEOUS CONSEQUENCES FOR SOME UNDERTAKINGS AND WILL RESULT IN ONLY PARTIAL INCREASES IN RATES FOR MOST OF THE OTHER UNDERTAKINGS .

IT IS TRUE THAT THAT CONSTITUTES A DISADVANTAGE FOR THE UNDERTAKINGS AFFECTED BY THOSE MEASURES, BUT THERE WOULD NOT APPEAR TO BE ANY GROUNDS FOR THE ARGUMENT PUT FORWARD BY THE APPLICANTS THAT THESE ALTERATIONS IN RATES COULD NOT BE WITHDRAWN AT A LATER STAGE .

THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRE THAT THE REQUEST BE REJECTED, AND IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ORDER THE MEASURES OF INQUIRY PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANTS .

THE DEFENDANT HAS NOT PUT FORWARD ANY CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING COSTS, AND IT IS NOT THEREFORE APPROPRIATE TO ORDER THE APPLICANTS TO BEAR THE COSTS .

THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

DECLARES AND ORDERS :

1 . THE APPLICATIONS ARE DISMISSED;

2 . THE APPLICANTS AND THE DEFENDANT MUST EACH BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .