| | ECJR-61 (Rules of Procedure)Reopening of oral procedure    
| ECJ (Rules of Procedure) | Article 61 | | The Court may after hearing the Advocate General order the reopening of the oral procedure. |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | C-331/04
ATI EAC | 14-17 | ECJR-61 | 14. By a document lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 19 September 2005, ACTV requested the Court of Justice to order the reopening of the oral procedure under Article 61 of the Rules of Procedure.
15. In support of its application, ACTV essentially argued that, in his Opinion, the Advocate General did not answer the main questions asked by the referring court. For that reason and to aid understanding of the questions referred in the light of the specific nature of the dispute in the main proceedings, it wished to submit further observations.
16. In that regard, it should be recalled that the Court may of its own motion, on a proposal from the Advocate General or at the request of the parties, order that the oral procedure be reopened, in accordance with Article 61 of the Rules of Procedure, if it considers that it lacks sufficient information, or that the case must be dealt with on the basis of an argument which has not been debated between the parties (see order of 4 February 2000 in Case C-17/98 Emesa Sugar [2000] ECR I-665, paragraph 18, and Case C-147/02 Alabaster [2004] ECR I-3101, paragraph 35).
17. In the present case, the Court, having heard the Advocate General, takes the view that it had all the information necessary to answer the questions referred and that that information had been debated before it. Consequently, the application to reopen the oral procedure must be rejected. | C-57/01
Makedoniko | 32-37 | ECJR-61 | 32 By letter of 15 July 2002, Makedoniko Metro requested that the oral procedure be reopened `so that further information about the subject-matter of the national procedure giving rise to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling could be given to the Court'.
33 Makedoniko Metro supports its request by disputing, inter alia, point 35 of the Advocate General's Opinion, in which she reformulates the question referred for a preliminary ruling, and point 79 of the Opinion, which explains the subject-matter of the question. In Makedoniko Metro's submission, the Advocate General was wrong to conclude that the national authorities took a decision excluding Makedoniko Metro from the procedure for the award of the contract at issue on the grounds of the change in its composition. The contracting authority at no time took a decision to exclude Makedoniko Metro from the procedure on the grounds of the change in its composition and, consequently, such a decision could not form the subject-matter of the main proceedings.
34 It is appropriate to bear in mind that the Court may of its own motion, on a proposal from the Advocate General or at the request of the parties, order that the oral procedure be reopened, in accordance with Article 61 of its Rules of Procedure, if it considers that it lacks sufficient information, or that the case must be dealt with on the basis of an argument which has not been debated between the parties (see Joined Cases C-270/97 and C-271/97 Deutsche Post [2000] ECR I-929, paragraph 30, and Case C-299/99 Philips [2002] ECR I-5475, paragraph 20).
35 As regards Makedoniko Metro's arguments, it must nevertheless be observed, first, that, in accordance with settled case-law, the Court may, where appropriate, reformulate a question referred for a preliminary ruling in order to avoid exceeding its jurisdiction and to provide the referring court with an answer that will be of assistance to it (see, to that effect, Case C-17/92 Distribuidores Cinematograficos [1993] ECR I-2239, paragraph 8, and Case C-107/98 Teckal [1999] ECR I-8121, paragraph 33) and, second, that it is for the national court to decide what forms the subject-matter of the main proceedings.
36 The submissions which Makedoniko Metro seeks to put forward in the course of a reopened oral procedure relate solely to questions falling within the jurisdiction of the referring court.
37 Having regard to those considerations, the Court, after hearing the Advocate General, concludes that there is nothing in Makedoniko Metro's request to indicate that it is necessary to reopen the oral procedure or that it would serve any useful purpose to do so. |
|
|
