Judgment of the Court of 3 March 1982. - Alpha Steel Ltd. v Commission of the European Communities. - System of production quotas for steel. - Case 111/81.



European Court reports 1982 Page 00785



Parties

Subject of the case

Grounds

Decision on costs

Operative part



Parties

IN CASE 111/81

ALPHA STEEL LTD , WHOSE REGISTERED OFFICE IS AT 2 RAYMOND BUILDINGS , GRAY ' S INN , LONDON , REPRESENTED BY ANDRE ELVINGER , OF THE LUXEMBOURG BAR , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF THE SAID ANDRE ELVINGER , 15 COTE D ' EICH ,

APPLICANT ,

V

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER , MICHEL VAN ACKERE , ASSISTED BY FRANK BENYON , A MEMBER OF ITS LEGAL DEPARTMENT , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE AT THE OFFICE OF ORESTE MONTALTO , A MEMBER OF ITS LEGAL DEPARTMENT , JEAN MONNET BUILDING , KIRCHBERG ,

DEFENDANT ,

Subject of the case

APPLICATION FOR A DECLARATION THAT AN INDIVIDUAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONCERNING THE FIXING OF PRODUCTION QUOTAS FOR CERTAIN STEEL PRODUCTS IS VOID ( ARTICLE 33 OF THE ECSC TREATY ),

Grounds

1 BY APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 8 MAY 1981 ALPHA STEEL LTD , A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER ENGLISH LAW , BROUGHT AN ACTION UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 33 OF THE ECSC TREATY FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE COMMISSION ' S INDIVIDUAL DECISION OF 6 APRIL 1981 FIXING THE APPLICANT ' S PRODUCTION QUOTAS FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF 1981 PURSUANT TO COMMISSION DECISION NO 2794/80/ECSC OF 31 OCTOBER 1980 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1980 , L 291 , P . 1 ) IS VOID .

2 IN SUPPORT OF ITS INITAL SUBMISSION THAT DECISION NO 2794/80 IS UNLAWFUL , THE APPLICANT ARGUES THAT THE COMMISSION OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED WHETHER IT WAS NECESSARY TO TAKE ACTION IN THE FIELD OF COMMERCIAL POLICY UNDER ARTICLE 74 OF THE ECSC TREATY WHEN IT WAS EXAMINING THE POSSIBILITY OF INTRODUCING A QUOTA SYSTEM . IT SUBMITS FURTHER THAT THE GENERAL DECISION IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH ARTICLE 58 ( 2 ) OF THE ECSC TREATY , WHICH REQUIRES THAT QUOTAS BE ESTABLISHED ' ' ON AN EQUITABLE BASIS ' ' . THE APPLICANT ALSO COMPLAINS OF THE FACT THAT THE REFERENCE PERIOD USED IN THE GENERAL DECISION RUNS FROM JULY 1977 TO JUNE 1980 AND CRITICIZES THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 4 ( 3 ) OF THAT DECISION ; IT CLAIMS THAT THOSE PROVISIONS WERE INTENDED TO BENEFIT A PARTICULAR UNDERTAKING AND THAT THEY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST NEW UNDERTAKINGS . FINALLY , THE APPLICANT TAKES EXCEPTION TO THE FACT THAT THE BENEFIT OF ARTICLE 4 ( 3 ) IS RESTRICTED TO UNDERTAKINGS WHICH PARTICIPATED IN A VOLUNTARY DELIVERY PROGRAMME ; THAT IS SAID TO BE IN BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NULLA POENA SINE LEGE AND THE PRINCIPLE OF THE PROTECTION OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION .

3 IN ITS SECOND SUBMISSION THE APPLICANT MAINTAINS , WITH REGARD TO THE INDIVIDUAL DECISION OF 6 APRIL 1981 , THAT THE COMMISSION OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED IT RELIEF UNDER ARTICLE 4 ( 3 ) OF THE GENERAL DECISION , WHICH REQUIRES THE UNDERTAKING TO HAVE PARTICIPATED FROM JULY 1977 TO JUNE 1980 IN THE COMMISSION ' S DELIVERY PROGRAMMES AND THE PROGRAMMES FOR THE UNDERTAKING TO HAVE BEEN FIXED WITH 1974 AS A BASIS . THE APPLICANT ALSO CONSIDERS THAT THE COMMISSION OUGHT TO HAVE APPLIED ARTICLE 14 OF THE GENERAL DECISION ON THE BASIS OF PRODUCTION CAPACITY , RATHER THAN ACTUAL PRODUCTION , AND THAT IT OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED IT A LARGER QUOTA .

4 THE SUBMISSIONS DESCRIBED ABOVE ARE THE SAME IN SUBSTANCE AS THOSE PUT FORWARD BY THE APPLICANT IN CASE 14/81 , WHICH CONCERNS AN APPLICATION FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE COMMISSION ' S DECISION FIXING THE APPLICANT ' S QUOTAS FOR THE FIRST QUARTER OF 1981 . THE POINTS OF LAW CONSIDERED IN CASE 14/81 ARE IDENTICAL TO THOSE WHICH HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THESE PROCEEDINGS .

5 IN A JUDGMENT DELIVERED THIS DAY THE COURT HAS EXAMINED THOSE SUBMISSIONS AND REJECTED THEM AS UNFOUNDED . ON THE SAME GROUNDS THE PRESENT APPLICATION MUST ALSO BE DISMISSED .

Decision on costs

COSTS

6 ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE PROVIDES THAT THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY IS TO BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .

7 SINCE THE APPLICATION HAS FAILED IN ITS SUBMISSIONS , IT MUST BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .

Operative part

ON THOSE GROUNDS ,

THE COURT

HEREBY :

1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATION ;

2 . ORDERS THE APPLICANT TO PAY THE COSTS .