“Geitling” Ruhrkohlen-Verkaufsgesellschaft mbH, “Mausegatt” Ruhrkohlen-Verkaufsgesellschaft mbH “Prasident” Ruhrkohlen-Verkaufsgesellschaft mbH and associated companies v High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community: ECJ 12 Feb 1960

ECJ The grounds of a decision limited to stressing the objectives to be attained by the high authority to ensure compliance with the treaty but expressly refraining from laying down precise rules which will have to be settled in the future, do not constitute a decision but simply a notice not binding the high authority in the future and not excluding the possibility of its changing its view. Where a decision contains no provisions having legal effects of a legislative or individual nature but is simply an internal measure taken by the High Authority, the applicant cannot be adversely affected. The claims of the applicant for the annulment of a decision which has not been ‘revoked with retroactive effect’ but simply ‘revoked’ are valid in respect of the period between the entry into force of the decision and its revocation; they have not ‘lost their purpose’; but if the applicant subsequently states to the court that he considers them to have done so, this statement is in the nature of a withdrawal of claim. If the wording of the grounds of a decision wrongly gives the impression that a definite view has already been taken and accordingly that there is a true decision justifying an action being brought and unreasonably causing costs to be incurred, the costs are to be borne in part by the defendant.


C-16/59, [1960] EUECJ C-16/59




Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131597