Article contents
Firma J. Nold, K. G. Kohlen- und Baustoffgrosshandlung, Darmstadt v. The High Authority.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2021
Abstract
Court of Justice of European Coal and Steel Community — Procedure — Barristers and advocates — Capacity to appear before Court after being prohibited from practising in national State — Effect of prohibition on validity of prior acts by barrister connected with action before the Court.
Procedure — Request for injunction — Time for making request — Effect of principal action being out of time — Rules of Court, Article 83.
Capacity of parties — Capacity of unincorporated firm to proceed against application to it of trade regulations alleged to be in breach of Treaty establishing Community — Necessity for plaintiff to have status of “producer ” — Effect of Article 80 equating distributing organization with producers for purposes of certain appeals to Court — Whether Article 80 aplicable to actions based upon indirect effects of Articles 65 and 66.
Capacity of parties — Company in liquidation — Law governing legal status and capacity of company — Law applied by Court in determining locus standi of representative of company before it.
International organization — European Coal and Steel Community — Decisions of High Authority — Grounds for grant by Court of suspension of application of decisions — Treaty establishing Community, Article 33 — Distinction between individual and general decisions — Decisions authorizing trade regulations — Retention of private law character of such trade regulations — Decisions indirectly affecting legal validity of actions by individual enterprises — Whether decisions general or individual — Whether decision which is individual with regard to enterprise to which addressed may also be general with regard to third parties — Decision amounting to discrimination against third parties — Violation of Treaty, Articles 15 and 65 (2) — Relevance of alleged violation of Federal German Constitution — Détournement de pouvoir — Violation of substantial procedural requirement — Purpose of obligation of High Authority under Article 15 to give reasons for decisions — Whether Court of Community may consider ex propria motu possible failure to give reasons — Whether insufficient reasons equivalent to absence of reasons for purposes of Articles 15.
Keywords
- Type
- Case Report
- Information
- Copyright
- © Cambridge University Press 1963
- 1
- Cited by