2.

Cases 30 and 136/82 further contain a supplementary argument, presented for the first time by the reply, in conjunction with the first submission, namely that the Commission misapplied Article 4 (3) of Decision 2794/80, read in conjunction with Article 6 (1) (b) of Decision 1831/81, inasmuch as it underestimated the applicant's capacity for the years 1977 to 1979 and thereby arrived at too low a margin of increase for the reference production when observing the adaptation requirements under Article 4 (3). The applicant alleges that, had the Commission — correctly — conceded that its No II rolling-mill in Bremen had an output capacity of 459000 tonnes per month, it would have had to allow the applicants higher production quotas in the context of Decision 2794/80, which in turn would have operated in the applicant's favour when it came to working out the arithmetical mean pursuant to Article 6 of Decision 1831/81 (the details of which are set forth among the facts of the case in my Opinion in Case 244/81 (cited previously)). I am uncertain whether the applicant wished to insist on that head of complaint following the Court's judgment in Case 119/81 (cited previously), which was given after the applicant's last written pleadings had already been drafted. That may reasonably be doubted, not least because the applicant did not refer to it again during the oral procedure. However that may be, it may readily be shown that such considerations cannot afford any additional ground for a declaration of nullity. The Commission has rightly pointed out that it is only the production quotas relating to the fourth quarter of 1980 and the first quarter of 1981 which arc of importance in relation to Article 6 of Decision 1831/81, and it has stressed that the notifications in question were not contested by the applicant in so far as an application in Article 4 (3) of Decision 2794/80 was at issue. The Commission was thereby enabled to proceed on the basis of the figures established at the time, and it docs not seem permissible — the measures in question being individual ones, after all — to return to them after expiry of the periods allowed for bringing an action. Another important point is that a similar objection, but one which related to the second quarter of 1981, has previously been made in Case 119/81 (cited previously), in which the Court held that there could be no question of a misapplication of Article 4 (3) of Decision 2794/80 on grounds of an erroneous assessment of the applicant's capacity between 1977 and 1979. No new facts or evidence on the matter are discernible here either; instead, the applicant relies principally on the documentation which has already been submitted in Case 119/81 (cited previously). If, at that time, such documentation was insufficient to demonstrate that the applicant's capacity between 1977 and 1979 should have been set at a higher level, it can scarcely be assumed that the Court would now appraise matters differently as regards that period. An additional remark may be made in this context. Were the Court to concur with the views I have expressed in Case 303/81, ( 4 ) and concede that the applicant would have been entitled to a higher production quota if Article 14 of Decision 2794/80 had been correctly applied in the first quarter of 1981, there would at least have had to be repercussions in terms of Article 6 of Decision 1831/81, referring as it does to all adjustments granted; a recalculation of the applicant's quota entitlement under Decision 1831/81 would therefore be called for.