2.

In relation to the first submission, it seems to me to be appropriate to emphasize that in all the sales involved the prices were determined by the alignment method permitted under Article 60 (2) (b) of the Treaty and Article 6 of the abovementioned Decision No 3000/77. This fact must always be borne in mind when moving on to establish whether or not Community law compels Lucchini to charge its German customers, in addition to the basic prices, the abovementioned extras for quality and quantity. As regards the extras for quality, the Commission's argument that this is the case is contested by the applicant with the argument that those charges are absorbed ex legge in the compulsory minimum prices. It claims that this follows from the wording of Article 2(1) of the abovementioned Decision No 3000/77, which provides that “the minimum prices shall be basic prices, ex-basing point, including extra for quality”. The applicant claims that this argument is confirmed a contrario by the fact that in general Decision No 3139/78 of 29 December 1978 fixing minimum prices for the same products at issue in this case, the Community legislature deleted the words “including extra for quality”. However, the defendant interprets the abovementioned Article 2 (1) of Decision No 3000/77 as meaning that the minimum legal price includes the extras which may be provided for in the previous pricelists of the undertakings only as regards the qualities in relation to which the minimum legal price was fixed and which are indicated in Article 1 (2) of the decision. It claims that this does not concern merchant bars since the quality mentioned as regards those bars in Article 1 (2) (b) is the basic quality (“merchant bars in ordinary mild steel”) which does not involve any additional charge. As regards the higher qualities however extras are normally provided for, even in the applicant's pricelist. I would point out that the contested provision refers to minimum prices which, doubtless, within the context of Decision No 3000/77, are the prices laid down by Article 1 (2) for the products listed there. The Commission's argument therefore seems to me to be correct. However, in any case, since the sales were made by the alignment method, it was necessary to refer to a German pricelist and there is no doubt that in that country's pricelists extras for quality are always provided for. After the introduction of the system of minimum prices, the cancellation or reduction of such extras was expressly prohibited: see Article 4 (2) of the abovementioned Decision No 3000/77. Article 4 (3) of the same decision is also compatible with this logic; that article refers to the effective list prices which take account of quality and provides that “the difference between such inclusive prices and the minimum prices set out in Article 1 shall be treated as extras for quality”. For the purposes of comparison with the minimum price, the effective price must therefore be reduced by the proportion corresponding to a special quality: this means that the minimum price does not include the extra. The applicant however seeks to base its argument on paragraph 176 of the decision in the abovementioned judgment of 18 March 1980, which states as follows: “... Article 2 of Decision No 3000/77 states that minimum prices shall be basic prices, including extra for quality, whereas Decision No 962/77 had merely stated in Article 2 that the minimum prices should be basic prices. In those circumstances, as from 1 January 1978, on which date Decision No 3000/77 entered into force, the minimum prices included extras for quality, whilst the amount of those extras could be added to the minimum prices in Decision No 962/77.” In my opinion the Court, in making that statement, did not in fact refuse to accept that, with regard to products of a higher quality than those described in the abovementioned Article 1 of Decision No 3000/77, the extras for quality provided for in the producers' pricelists should be calculated separately from the basic prices, giving rise to additional charges. The extract quoted from the judgment must be understood as meaning that, after Decision No 3000/77 came into force, the extras for quality which may be provided for in the pricelists for the products indicated in Article 1 (2) of that decision must be considered to be included in the minimum prices relating to those products. In reality this applies solely to “improved adhesion concrete reinforcing bars” (Article 1 (2) (d)) which have higher specifications than smooth concrete reinforcing bars in ordinary mild steel (Article 1 (2) (c)). In any case I would repeat that in this instance the prices involved were not laid down directly in the manufacturer's pricelist but determined by alignment, and I have already explained that this removes all doubts as to the need to bill the additional charges laid down in the pricelist on which the seller aligns himself. The Community rules do not in fact permit the price charged to amount to a delivered price lower than that of the undertaking on whose list the alignment was carried out: see Article 3 of general Decision No 30/53/ECSC. The complaint so far examined should not therefore be accepted. It is however necessary to acknowledge that the abovementioned provision laid down in Article 2 (1) of Decision No 3000/77 is drafted very ambiguously, as, moreover, the defendant has itself admitted; this imperfect wording may have misled the persons to whom the provision was addressed. The Court will be able to take this into account in assessing whether the fine was appropriate.