C-220/78

Avis juridique important | 61978J0220 Judgment of the Court of 5 April 1979. - Azienda Laminazione Acciaio - ALA SpA and Azienda Laminazione Ferro - ALFER SpA v Commission of the European Communities. - Joined cases 220 and 221/78. European Court reports 1979 Page 01693 Greek special edition Page 00893 Summary Parties Subject of the case Grounds Decision on costs Operative part Keywords . PROCEEDINGS - TIME-LIMITS - EXPIRATION - RESULT - BARRING ( STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ECSC , ART . 39 ) 2 . PROCEDURE - APPLICATION - CONDITIONS - DISREGARD - PUTTING IN ORDER - LIMITS ( RULES OF PROCEDURE , ART . 38 ( 7 )) Summary . IT FOLLOWS FROM THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 39 OF THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ECSC THAT , APART FROM THE EXISTENCE OF UNFORESEEABLE CIRCUMSTANCES OR OF FORCE MAJEURE , DISREGARD OF THE TIME-LIMITS FOR BRINGING PROCEEDINGS RESULTS IN THE RIGHT OF ACTION ' S BEING BARRED . . THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF PUTTING AN APPLICATION IN ORDER AS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 38 ( 7 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE WHERE THE APPLICATION IS ALREADY OUT OF TIME . Parties IN JOINED CASES 220 AND 221/78 , AZIENDA LAMINAZIONE ACCIAIO - A.L.A ., S.P.A ., AND AZIENDA LAMINAZIONE FERRO - A.L.F.E.R ., S.P.A ., COMPANIES WHOSE REGISTERED OFFICE IS AT PISOGNA ( BRESCIA ), REPRESENTED BY THEIR MANAGING DIRECTOR ANTONIO GIORDANI , ASSISTED BY CESARE CASTELLI OF THE BRESCIA BAR , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF GUY THOMAS , ADVOCATE , 11A , BOULEVARD JOSEPH II , APPLICANTS , V COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , REPRESENTED BY ALBERTO PROZZILLO , ACTING AS AGENT , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF MARIO CERVINO , JEAN MONNET BUILDING , KIRCHBERG , DEFENDANT , Subject of the case APPLICATION , AT THE PRESENT STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS , BY THE DEFENDANT FOR A DECLARATION OF INADMISSIBILITY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ACTIONS ARE OUT OF TIME AND IRREGULAR , Grounds 1BY DECISIONS OF 30 MAY 1978 THE COMMISSION IMPOSED PENALTIES ON THE COMPANIES A.L.A . AND A.L.F.E.R . FOR DISREGARD OF DECISIONS NOS 14/64 AND 962/77/ECSC ON MANDATORY MINIMUM PRICES FOR CERTAIN CONCRETE REINFORCEMENT BARS ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL L 114 OF 5 MAY 1977 ). 2NOTICE OF THE DECISIONS WAS GIVEN TO THE COMPANIES , WHOSE REGISTERED OFFICE IS AT PISOGNA ( BRESCIA ), ON 5 JUNE 1978 . 3BY REGISTERED LETTERS RECEIVED AT THE COURT ON 20 JULY 1978 THE COMPANIES LODGED AN APPLICATION AGAINST THE DECISIONS . 4THE LETTERS , WHICH ARRIVED OUT OF TIME AND WERE NOT SIGNED BY A LAWYER , WERE RETURNED BY THE COURT REGISTRY SO THAT THE APPLICANTS MIGHT ' ' COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 37 AND 38 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ' ' . 5ON 2 OCTOBER 1978 APPLICATIONS SIGNED BY A LAWYER AND DATED 21 SEPTEMBER 1978 WERE REGISTERED AT THE COURT REGISTRY . 6THE COMMISSION HAS CLAIMED THAT THE APPLICATIONS WERE INADMISSIBLE FOR DISREGARD OF THE TIME-LIMIT FOR BRINGING PROCEEDINGS AS LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 39 OF THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ECSC AND ARTICLE 81 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AS SUPPLEMENTED BY ARTICLE 1 OF ANNEX II TO THE SAID RULES AND BECAUSE THE FIRST APPLICATIONS WERE NOT SIGNED BY A LAWYER AS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 37 ( 1 ) OF THE RULES . 7ARTICLE 37 ( 3 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE PROVIDES THAT IN THE RECKONING OF TIME-LIMITS FOR TAKING STEPS IN PROCEEDINGS , THE ONLY RELEVANT DATE SHALL BE THAT OF LODGMENT AT THE REGISTRY . 8REGARDING THE ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS , COMPARISON OF THE DATE OF NOTIFICATION OF THE PENALTIES WITH THAT OF THE RECEIPT OF THE FIRST APPLICATIONS AT THE COURT REGISTRY SHOWS THAT THEY WERE LODGED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME-LIMIT OF ONE MONTH FOR BRINGING PROCEEDINGS AS EXTENDED BY THE TIME GRANTED ON ACCOUNT OF DISTANCE , IN THIS CASE TEN DAYS . 9IT FOLLOWS FROM THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 39 OF THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ECSC THAT APART FROM THE EXISTENCE OF UNFORESEEABLE CIRCUMSTANCES OR OF FORCE MAJEURE , WHICH IS NOT SERIOUSLY CLAIMED IN THIS CASE , DISREGARD OF THE TIME-LIMITS FOR BRINGING PROCEEDINGS RESULTS IN THE RIGHT OF ACTION ' S BEING BARRED . 10THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF PUTTING AN APPLICATION IN ORDER AS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 38 ( 7 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE WHERE THE APPLICATION IS ALREADY OUT OF TIME . 11WITHOUT ITS BEING NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE OBJECTION THAT THE ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS WERE INADMISSIBLE SINCE THEY WERE NOT SIGNED BY A LAWYER OR TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS SUBSEQUENTLY SIGNED BY A LAWYER AND REGISTERED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 2 OCTOBER 1978 , WHICH WERE THUS OBVIOUSLY OUT OF TIME , THE APPLICATIONS OF COMPANIES A.L.A . AND A.L.F.E.R . MUST BE DECLARED INADMISSIBLE . Decision on costs COSTS 12ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE PROVIDES THAT THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS IF THEY HAVE BEEN ASKED FOR IN THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY ' S PLEADING . 13THE COMMISSION HAS ASKED FOR COSTS , WHILST STATING THAT IT WOULD BE SATISFIED ' ' WITH A MORE OR LESS NOMINAL AMOUNT ' ' . 14ARTICLE 69 ( 3 ) PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE EXCEPTIONAL , THE COURT MAY ORDER THAT THE PARTIES BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS IN WHOLE OR IN PART . 15IT IS RIGHT TO CONSIDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AS SUCH IN VIEW OF THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE COMMISSION . Operative part ON THOSE GROUNDS , THE COURT HEREBY : 1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATIONS AS INADMISSIBLE ; . ORDERS EACH PARTY TO BEAR ITS OWN COSTS .