Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 . MEASURES ADOPTED BY INSTITUTIONS - INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS UNDER THE ECSC TREATY - REQUIREMENTS AS TO FORM - INFRINGEMENT - PENALTIES - LIMITS

( ECSC TREATY , ART . 18 ; DECISION 22/60 OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY )

2 . MEASURES ADOPTED BY INSTITUTIONS - DUTY TO STATE REASONS - EXTENT - DECISION FIXING PRODUCTION QUOTAS

( ECSC TREATY , ART . 15 )

3 . ECSC - PRODUCTION - SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION QUOTAS FOR STEEL - REFERENCE PRODUCTION - CONDITIONS FOR INCREASE - NEW PRODUCTION CAPACITIES - CRITERIA OF ASSESSMENT

( GENERAL DECISION 2794/80 , ART . 4 , POINT 4 )

4 . ECSC - PRODUCTION - SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION QUOTAS FOR STEEL - REFERENCE PRODUCTION - CONDITIONS FOR INCREASE - NEW PRODUCTION CAPACITIES AND RESTRUCTURING OF UNDERTAKINGS - CUMULATIVE CONSIDERATION - NOT PERMISSIBLE

( GENERAL DECISION 2794/80 , ART . 4 , POINTS 4 AND 5 )

5 . OBJECTION OF ILLEGALITY - PROVISIONS OF GENERAL DECISIONS THE ILLEGALITY OF WHICH MAY BE PLEADED - PROVISIONS CONSTITUTING THE BASIS OF THE CONTESTED INDIVIDUAL DECISION

( ECSC TREATY , ART . 36 , THIRD PARAGRAPH )

Summary

1 . ALTHOUGH DECISION 22/60 ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 15 OF THE ECSC TREATY PRESCRIBES IN A DETAILED MANNER THE FORMAL REQUIREMENTS OF MEASURES OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY IN ORDER CLEARLY TO DISTINGUISH THE NATURE OF THOSE MEASURES , FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THOSE REQUIREMENTS NEVERTHELESS DOES NOT ENTAIL THE NULLITY OF SUCH MEASURES WHERE THEY ARE UNQUES TIONABLY INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS TAKEN ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A SCHEME PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED BY MEANS OF A GENERAL DECISION ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FORMAL REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED BY DECISION 22/60 .

2 . WHERE EXAMINATION OF THE FIGURES IN A NOTIFICATION FROM THE COMMISSION FIXING PRODUCTION QUOTAS MAKES IT POSSIBLE FOR THE UNDERTAKING TO WHICH THE NOTIFICATION IS ADDRESSED TO DETERMINE WHICH PROVISIONS OF THE GENERAL DECISION HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF ITS OWN FINANCIAL POSITION , THE SUMMARY STATEMENT OF THE REASONS ON WHICH THE NOTIFICATION IS BASED CANNOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ITS VALIDITY SINCE IT IS NOT SUCH AS TO DEPRIVE THE UNDERTAKING OF THE OPPORTUNITY OF CHECKING THE CORRECT APPLICATION IN REGARD TO ITSELF OF THE RULES LAID DOWN BY THE BASIC DECISION OR TO PREVENT THE COURT FROM EXERCISING ITS TASK OF REVIEW .

3 . IN PROVIDING FOR A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TOTAL PRODUCTION POSSIBILITIES EXISTING FOR 1979 AND THE NEW PRODUCTION CAPACITY ARISING FROM THE ACTIVATION OF NEW PLANT AFTER 1 JULY 1980 ARTICLE 4 , POINT 4 , OF DECISION 2794/80 ESTABLISHING A SYSTEM OF STEEL PRODUCTION QUOTAS FOR UNDERTAKINGS IN THE IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY INTENDED TO COMPARE THE PRODUCTION CAPACITY EXISTING FOR 1979 WITH THAT ARISING WHEN NEW CAPACITIES ARE BROUGHT INTO OPERATION AND THUS TO GRANT THE BENEFIT OF AN ADAPTATION OF THE REFERENCE PRODUCTION TO EVERY UNDERTAKING WHICH INCREASED ITS PRODUCTION CAPACITY BY MORE THAN 15 % AT ANY TIME DURING THE SECOND HALF OF 1980 . THE PROVISION IN QUESTION MUST NOT THEREFORE BE INTERPRETED AS COMPARING THE ANNUAL PRODUCTION CAPACITIES FOR 1979 AND 1980 FOR ANY INCREASE IN QUOTA WOULD THEN DEPEND ON AN INCREASE IN PRODUCTION CAPACITIES WHICH WOULD HAVE TO BE PROPORTIONATELY LARGER ACCORDING TO HOW LATE IN THE SECOND HALF OF 1980 NEW PLANT IS ACTIVATED AND THE RESULT WOULD FAVOUR OR PLACE AT A DISADVANTAGE UNDERTAKINGS ON THE BASIS OF A FACTOR ALIEN TO THE SYSTEM .

4 . IT FOLLOWS FROM THE NATURE AND THE OBJECTIVES OF THE TWO DIFFERENT RESTRUCTURING MEASURES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 4 , POINTS 4 AND 5 , OF DECISION 2794/80 THAT FROM THE ECONOMIC POINT OF VIEW THEIR EFFECTS ARE IN NORMAL CASES INTENDED TO COMPENSATE ONE ANOTHER AND NOT TO BE CUMULATIVE . THAT ECONOMIC CONNECTION IN TURN NECESSITATES THE REJECTION OF AN INTERPRETATION WHICH WOULD RESULT IN THE TWO QUOTA INCREASES BEING ACCUMULATED AND GIVE RISE TO ABNORMAL PRODUCTION POSSIBILITIES CLEARLY EXCEEDING THE OBJECTIVES OF THE PROVISION IN QUESTION .

5 . ALTHOUGH IN AN ACTION FOR A DECLARATION THAT AN INDIVIDUAL DECISION IS VOID THE APPLICANT MAY ALLEGE THAT CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF GENERAL DECISIONS WHICH THE CONTESTED DECISION IMPLEMENTS ARE ILLEGAL , THE APPLICANT MAY DO SO ONLY IF THE INDIVIDUAL DECISION IS BASED ON THE RULES ALLEGED TO BE ILLEGAL .