9.

I cannot fully agree with that assessment. Admittedly there are data which, in view of their confidential character, the Commission must treat as subject to professional secrecy without carrying out any further examination. That category includes information about undertakings' business relations and their cost components, which is expressly covered by Article 47 of the ECSC Treaty. But in this case the situation is not so clearcut. In itself the publication of the additional quotas allocated pursuant to Article 10 does not necessarily disclose information specific to the undertaking concerned which is likely to damage it: the causal connection referred to by the Commission seems to be uncertain and, what is more, the damage invoked hypothetical. Besides the Commission's assessment does not appear to take account of the extensive supervisory powers which are vested in the Commission itself under Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty with regard to anticompetitive practices on the part of steel undertakings. I consider that the same interpretation should be applied to the additional quotas provided for in Article 14c: here again the Commission invokes the ‘possibility’ that the undertakings eliminated will adopt a joint strategy towards the undertaking to which the quota has been allocated. As regards Articles 14 and 16, it is incorrect to say that the exceptional difficulties referred to therein necessarily mean that the undertakings to which additional quotas are granted pursuant thereto are in deficit. The Commission states that generally it does not effect adjustments on the basis of those articles unless the undertakings concerned are making losses and that hence it can be concluded ‘in virtually every case’ that the undertakings are facing ‘considerable financial difficulties’. Whatever the criteria employed by the Commission they do, on its own admission, not always include undertakings which are in deficit. Furthermore, such an approach is not required by Articles 14 and 16, which are designed to relax the rigidities caused by the quota system itself. I would add that the adjustments granted pursuant to those articles may, on the contrary, reflect the fact that supplementary funds have been given to the undertakings in question in order to overcome their ‘exceptional difficulties’ and hence in order to help restore or strengthen their creditworthiness. In conclusion it appears to me that the causal connexion between publication of the additional quotas granted pursuant to Articles 10, 14, 14c and 16 of the Commission's decisions and any other information thereby published which, in view of its character, should be subject to professional secrecy is too uncertain to be accepted on a systematic basis. However, that does not mean that the cases covered by those articles are never to be subject to professional secrecy by virtue of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the ECSC Treaty. Indeed it is possible that the disclosure of the additional quotas obtained by an undertaking by virtue of the said articles of the Commission decisions might have the effect of revealing information about the undertaking concerned of such a kind as to damage it in view of its special circumstances or of the economic context. In such a case the Commission would be obliged to plead professional secrecy. Moreover its rôle in that area is particularly delicate since, as it is responsible for ensuring transparency, it may as a result incur liability. Therefore I am not saying that the Commission should in this case have provided the applicant with the information which it continues to withold from it. I am simply saying that it was not entitled to refuse the applicant's request on purelyformal grounds by referring in abstracto to four provisions. A decision of refusal on the ground of professional secrecy presupposed in this case a specific examination of the circumstances on the part of the Commission. In view of the fact that such an examination, which would be the sole means of revealing whether or not certain information which should be kept secret, did not take place it appears that the Commission's continuing refusal to comply with the Wirtschaftsvereinigung's request should incur the Court's censure.