C-39/81

HALYVOURGIKI v COMMISSION

means that the link established by conjectural, such as production Article 58 (1) between the intro- capacity; secondly, it enables total duction of production quotas and the production to be reduced without imposition of restrictions on imports altering the positions of the under- of competing products cannot be in takings on the market as between any way automatic. each other. 5. Article 58 (2) of the ECSC Treaty 6. Under the scheme of Decision N o does not restrict the Commission's 2794/80 the aim of paragraphs (3) freedom to choose the basis upon and (4) of Article 4 thereof is to help which the quotas may be equitably some undertakings by rectifying the determined in a given economic results obtained by taking into situation. There are no reasonable account the reference production grounds for denying that the figures defined by Article 4 (1) and Commission's choice of the criterion (2). The aim of those provisions is, based on undertakings' actual pro- more precisely, to adapt the reference duction may constitute an "equitable production figures of some under- basis" within the meaning of Article takings, having regard to their par- 58 (2). Indeed that criterion, as ticipation during the period under adjusted by Article 4 of Decision N o consideration in voluntary reduction 2794/80, constitutes, in the first place, programmes and to the restrictions an objective basis of assessment which placed upon them as a result of the avoids the uncertainties inherent in control exercised by the Commission determining a factor which is partly over new investment.

COMMISSION O F THE E U R O P E A N C O M M U N I T I E S , r e p r e s e n t e d by its Legal Adviser, Michel van A c k e r e , acting as A g e n t , assisted by F r a n k Benyon, a m e m b e r of

JUDGMENT OF 16. 2. 1982 — JOINED CASES 39, 43, 85 AND 88/81

its Legal Department, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Oreste Montalto, a member of its Legal Department, Jean Monnet Building, Kirchberg, defendant,

APPLICATIONS for a declaration that individual decisions by which the Commission fixed the applicants' production quotas for crude steel and rolled products for the first quarter of 1981 are void,

THE COURT

composed of: J. Mertens de Wilmars, President, G. Bosco, A. Touffait and O. Due (Presidents of Chambers), P. Pescatore, Lord Mackenzie Stuart, A. O'Keeffe, T. Koopmans, U. Everling, A. Chloros and F. Grévisse, Judges,

ever recorded in the Community. The mill plate and wide flats; heavy sections undertakings' forecasts indicated that the (sheet piling, wide flanged beams, other rate would fall again in the fourth beams and other sections, permanent quarter to below 5 5 % . The large way material) and light sections (coiled variation in the decline in production, wire rod, concrete reinforcing bars and from one undertaking or region to other merchant bars). another, caused economic and social imbalance between undertakings and According to Article 3 (1) of the regions. decision, the quarterly production quotas are to be fixed by the Commission for Between January and September 1980 each undertaking on the basis of the the fall in demand resulted in a slump reference production figures of that in steel prices in the Community. They undertaking and by application of fell by 1 3 % , whilst production costs abatement rates to those reference increased by 5 % in the same period. production figures.

Article 2 of that decision provides that (b) Paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) of Article the Commission is to fix quarterly 4 describe the particular cases in production quotas for crude steel and for which the reference production four groups of rolled products: hot- figures, and consequently the quotas, rolled wide and narrow strip; reversing are to be increased.

JUDGMENT OF 16. 2. 1982 — JOINED CASES 39, 43, 85 AND 88/81

According to Article 4 (3), the the Commission shall, on certain Commission must, while taking account conditions and within specific limits, of the criteria given, increase the adapt the reference production of that reference production figures of under- undertaking. takings which, during the period from July 1977 to June 1980, had an average rate of utilization of production facilities Article 4 (5) provides for an increase in of 10 percentage points or more below an undertaking's reference production the average rate of utilization of the figures to take account of restructuring. same facilities of the other undertakings of the Community during the years The rates of abatement for rolled 1977, 1978 and 1979. products, having been fixed for the fourth quarter of 1980 by Article 5 (1) of Article 4 (4) provides that where, further Decision N o 2794/80, were fixed for the to an investment programme duly first quarter of 1981 by Article 1 of reported and not the subject of an un- Commission Decision No 3381/80/ favourable opinion, the undertaking ECSC of 23 December 1980 (Official activates a new plant after 1 July 1980, Journal L 355, p. 37) as follows:

HALYVOURGIKI v C O M M I S S I O N

of Decision No 2794/80 and Decision Thus, by telex messages of 19 January No 3381/80, the Commission informed 1981, the Commission communicated to the Greek iron and steel undertakings in Halyvourgiki Inc., M e t a l l u r g i k i Halyps January and February 1981 of their SA and Helleniki Halyvourgia SA their reference production figures and pro- reference production figures and pro- duction quotas resulting from the ap- duction quotas for the first quarter of plication of the abatement rates for the 1981 as fixed by individual decisions first quarter of 1981. Those quotas were adopted respectively on 19 January, based on reference production figures 3 February and 20 January 1981 calculated in accordance with Article 4 and notified to those concerned on (1) and (2) of Decision No 2794/80. 3 February.

The figures thus fixed were as follows:

(a) Halyvourgiki Inc.

Reference production Quota Reduction 1 st January 1980 February 1980 March 1979 Total Quarter 1981

tonnes tonnes tonnes tonnes % tonnes

Rolled products Category I — — — — — — Category II — — — — — — Category III — — — — — — Category IV 11 196 10 476 10 625 32 297 27.64 23 370

Total I to IV 11 196 10 476 10 625 32 297 23 370

Crude steel 11 577 12 225 12 530 36 332 27.64 26 289

J U D G M E N T O F 16. 2. 1982 — J O I N E D CASES 39, 43, 85 A N D 88/81

On 19 and 20 February 1981 five Greek and, in one case, information obtained in steel undertakings, including Haly¬ situ by its own inspectors, the vourgiki Inc. (Case 39/81), Metallurgiki Commission had adopted decisions on Halyps SA (Case 41/81) and Helleniki 13 March 1981 amending its original Halyvourgia SA (Case 43/81), brought decisions on production quotas for the actions under Article 33 of the ECSC first quarter of 1981. Treaty for the annulment of the Com- mission decisions fixing the production (a) In particular, pursuant inter alia to quotas for the first quarter of 1981; they Article 14 and Article 5 (2) of Decision also applied under Article 39 of the No 2794/80, the decision of 13 March ECSC Treaty and Article 83 of the Rules 1981 made the following amendments to of Procedure for the operation of those the production quotas of Halyvourgiki decisions to be suspended. Inc. for the first quarter of 1981 :

By an order dated 13 May 1981 the Court decided to join the five Quotas fixed applications registered under Nos 39/81, by decision Quotas fixed by decision 40/81, 41/81, 42/81 and 43/81 for the of 19 January of 13 March 1981 1981 (in tonnes) purposes of the procedure and the (in tonnes) judgment. Rolled Products Category I 66 113 91481 Following the withdrawal of their applications by the two undertakings in Category II 14 145 — Cases 40/81 and 42/81, the Court, by an Category III — — order dated 16 September 1981, removed Category IV 67 678 86 275 those cases from the register and ordered each of the undertakings to bear one fifth of the costs incurred until the date Crude steel 75 224 187 775 of withdrawal, including the costs of the proceedings for the adoption of interim measures.

By an order dated 13 May 1981 the At the hearing on 10 November 1981 Court decided to join the applications counsel for Metallurgiki Halyps SA, registered under Nos 85/81, 86/81, Ernest Arendt, of the Luxembourg Bar, 87/81 and 88/81 for the purposes of the asked the Court to disjoin Cases 41 and procedure and the judgment. 121/81 from the other joined cases and to postpone the oral procedure in those two cases; alternatively, he proposed to withdraw the applications. After hearing By an order dated 16 September 1981 the Commission's observations and the the Court removed Cases 86/81 and views of the Advocate General and 87/81 from the register following the deliberating on the matter, the Court withdrawal of the applications by two decided at the hearing that, although no undertakings, each of which was ordered reason had been adduced which might to bear one quarter of the costs incurred justify the postponement or disjoinder of until the date of withdrawal. Cases 41 and 121/81, Metallurgiki Halyps SA should be allowed to withdraw its applications.

Cases 39, 41, 43, 85, 88 and 121/81. By III — Submissions and argu- the same order the parties in Case 41/81 m e n t s of t h e p a r t i e s R were ordered to bear their own costs, the costs having previously been reserved by the order of the President of 20 In support of their applications for a March 1981. declaration that the individual decisions concerning them are void, the applicants The Advocate General delivered his contend that the general decisions on opinion at the sitting on 12 January which they are based, Decisions Nos 1982. 2794/80 and 3381/80, are, in the first place, not applicable to Greek under- takings or at any rate void as far as they II — C o n c l u s i o n s of t h e p a r t i e s are concerned and, secondly, vitiated by illegality owing to the infringement of an essential procedural requirement, the The applicants claim that the Court failure to give an adequate statement of should: reasons and the infringement of the ECSC Treaty, in particular Articles 58 (a) In Cases 39 and 43/81 : and 74 thereof. Declare void the decisions of 19 and 20 January 1981 whereby the The Commission considers that by virtue Commission fixed steel production of the Act of Accession Decisions Nos quotas for each of the applicants 2794/80 and 3381/80 apply to Greek pursuant to Decisions Nos 2794/80/ steel undertakings and are entirely valid ECSC and 3381/80/ECSC; and as against them; moreover, they comply with the ECSC Treaty and are properly Order the Commission to pay the reasoned. costs.

documents; therefore they could not be adopted by the institutions, does not the subject either of transitional measures mention future acts any more than does pursuant to Article 9 of the Act of Article 2. Accession, or of the adaptations provided for in Articles 21 and 22 thereof, as acts adopted by the The "Community patrimony" ["acquis institutions. communautaire"] consists of those treaties and acts of the institutions existing at the date of the Treaty of It is true that Article 2 of the Act of Accession, as adapted by that Treaty. Accession provides that the acts adopted by the institutions of the Communities are to be binding on the Hellenic (b) It is true that Article 146 of the Act Republic "from the date of accession"; of Accession envisages the entry into the principle of the applicability of force from the date of accession of Community legislation is in no way contested by the applicants. However, certain "adaptations" to the acts of the that principle does not apply to future Community institutions not included in legislation and, according to Article 2 of that Act and made by the institutions the Act of Accession, is to be put into before accession; however, that provision effect only "under the conditions laid has in view adaptations to the acts and down . . . in this Act". In the absence of not the acts themselves, and the adap- any express provision to that effect, tations are intended only to "bring those Greece cannot be deemed to have agreed acts into line" with the provisions of the by treaty to future acts which were Act of Accession. The "acts of the unknown and wholly undetermined at institutions" in question are clearly acts the time when the Treaty was signed and which are already known and in force which were to be adopted subsequently and which could not be adapted under by institutions in which Greece was not Articles 21 and 22 of the Act of represented and without any involvement Accession owing to the great number of on its part. regulations; although it was only a question of adaptations and not of new acts, those adaptations necessarily had to be effected without the involvement of The surrender of sovereignty involved in the new Member State and without its accession to the Treaty is inconceivable being represented within the Community without the participation of the new institutions. Member State in the Community institutions; in order for Greece to be bound and to agree to be bound by Article 146 of the Act of Accession is provisions which are not dealt with in obviously restrictive in nature.' it is the Treaty of Accession or in measures intended to enable the Community adopted by institutions truly "enlarged" institutions not yet "enlarged by the through its participation, the Treaty of entry of Greece" to adapt the measures Accession would have had to contain adopted by the institutions; it does not an express and unequivocal provision allow the institutions not yet enlarged to establishing such an indeterminate and adopt new measures. unlimited surrender of sovereignty.

The decision is also void as regards Greece for failing to contain a sufficient statement of the reasons on which it is based: no reasons are given for the (c) The information and consultation future entry into force of the decision in procedure provided for by the Final Act Greece and the situation of that country of 28 May 1979 (Official Journal L 291, is not taken into consideration at all. p. 191) for the adoption of certain decisions and other measures to be adopted during the period prior to accession should have been in operation already with a view to making the "adaptations" referred to in Article 146 of the Act of Accession. Taken together, Article 146 and the provisions on the (d) Decision No 2794/80 is not information and consultation procedure applicable to Greece because of the very make it impossible to accept that content of the decision and reasons on between the signing and the entry into which it is based: the fall in demand and force of the Act of Accession the new period of manifest crisis referred to in Member State, although informed and the preamble to the regulation are consulted where appropriate, had only to representative only of the situation in submit to and follow the legislative the Community without Greece; the decisions of institutions in which it was statement that undertakings have failed not yet represented. to fulfil their individual voluntary commitments and refused to commit themselves for the future obviously cannot apply to Greek undertakings; the method of determining quotas provided for in Article 4 (3) and (4) clearly excludes adjustments for undertakings In any case, neither the statement of which were not part of the Common reasons in the preamble to Decision N o Market in the previous years. The fixing 2794/80, although detailed, nor the of quotas on the basis of actual statement that certain consultations had production between 1977 and 1980 is taken place mentions that information entirely inappropriate in the case of had been given to Greece. It is a Greek undertakings, which, not being principle of administrative law that part of the Common Market in those decisions must show that they have been years, did not enjoy protection either adopted in a proper manner. The failure against other Member States or against to mention that an essential procedural non-member countries and were not only requirement has been satisfied precludes denied the support machinery introduced evidence to the contrary and renders the by the Community but owing to decision null and void.

The measures adopted by the institutions of the Communities are most certainly applicable to Greece on the conditions (e) In reply to the Commission's laid down in the Act of Accession, that is assertion that if the applicants' views to say subject, first, to the "adaptations" were accepted all Community legislation made necessary by the entry of a tenth enacted over a period of 19 months Member into the Communities and the would for ever remain inapplicable to corresponding extension of their geo- Greece, the applicants state that a treaty graphical scope and, secondly, to the may not be construed and applied solely temporary derogations and transitional on grounds of expediency and, measures provided for in the Act of moreover, that from 1 January 1981 the Accession itself, in particular in Article 9 quite exceptional situation of Greece thereof. necessitated in practical terms a supp- lementary decision based on Article 58 of the ECSC Treaty, since Regulation No 2794/80 was clearly unsuitable for application to Greece. In the steel sector, there are special provisions for the introduction of the ECSC unified tariff (Articles 32 to 34) and for the setting of prices by iron and steel undertakings (Article 129). The Commission disputes all the However, there is no provision anywhere arguments denying that the general to the effect that measures adopted decisions at issue are applicable or valid pursuant to Article 58 of the ECSC as regards Greek steel undertakings. Treaty may not apply to Greece or may only apply to it on certain conditions in derogation from Community law.

adaptations but also adaptations to contained in the acts of the institutions legislation enacted between the signing require a statement of the reasons on of the documents concerning accession which they are based: measures not and the date of accession and, more contained therein require no such generally, all the amendments to acts of statement. the institutions which may have appeared necessary owing to the new temporary rules provided for in the Act of Accession. Unless otherwise stated, all (e) The statement of reasons contained the acts adopted by the institutions of the in a general decision cannot take account Communities before accession apply to of the specific situation of each steel Greece, as they do to the other Member undertaking considered State by State, of the Communities, as first enacted or old or new. Decision No 2794/80 is of subject to any amendments found to be general concern to all the steel under- necessary. takings in the Community, as it is composed at the time when the terms of the decision are applied.

HALYVOURGIKI v COMMISSION

accompanied by the measures provided In any case, the reasons on which acts of for in Article 74. But the provisions the institutions are stated to be based referred to in the preamble to Decision must justify the measures adopted and N o 2794/80 do not include Article 74; in contained in those acts; they do not need fact there is no mention of that provision to justify the failure to adopt measures either in the preamble or the articles of which are not contained therein. the decision.

JUDGMENT OF 16. 2. 1982 — JOINED CASES 39, 43, 85 AND 88/81

HALYVOURGIKI v COMMISSION

(a) The basic method of fixing adapted the quotas for two Greek under- production quotas described in Articles takings pursuant to Article 4 (4). That 3, 4 and 5 of Decision No 2794/80 takes provision clearly does not discriminate into consideration, in order to determine between Greek companies and other reference production figures for each companies in the Community or in fact undertaking, a period sufficiently recent between any undertakings operating in to reflect actual structures and suf- similar circumstances. ficiently long to eliminate any fortuitous circumstances. It sets individual abatement rates for each category of products, so as to take account of the Article 4 (5) seeks to prevent the quota particular situation on the market for system from jeopardizing efforts at reor- each category. ganization which some undertakings have successfully made since 1974, when the crisis began.

The aim of Article 4 (3) is to avoid any unfairness which certain undertakings which had participated in the voluntary The last subparagraph of Article 5 (2) delivery programmes might have makes provision for undertakings to suffered. The Greek undertakings did apply for an adjustment of their crude not participate in those programmes, so steel quotas to enable them to produce there was no need to make adjustments the quantities of rolled products fixed by for their benefit. However, no discrimi- their production quotas. Such an nation is caused thereby: it is not an adjustment has already been made in the instance of treating undertakings in case of one Greek undertaking. similar circumstances differently.

The criterion based on an undertaking's Moreover, production calculated on a actual production is objective, accurate national basis does not provide the and quantifiable; the concept of relevant figures. Decision N o 2794/80 "production capacity", on the other introduced a system of quotas concern- hand, is less precise and more difficult to ing undertakings and the production of define. Moreover, the fixing of quotas by each of the five Greek undertakings is reference to the maximum production not negligible; it exceeds by far the capacity of undertakings would inevi- threshold of 3 000 tonnes under which tably penalize those which, owing to small undertakings are exempt from rational management, utilize their ca- quotas. By virtue of the principle of pacity to a very high degree and would solidarity the sacrifices demanded of the unjustifiably benefit those operating at a Greek undertakings should be, and are, low rate of utilization; it would also be the same as those demanded of other contrary to the aims of Article 3 of the undertakings in the Community. ECSC Treaty, particularly those set out in paragraphs (a) and (e). The system of quotas introduced by Decision N o 2794/80 does not impose on the undertakings concerned burdens (d) The claim that the principle of which are out of proportion to the aim proportionality has been breached is a pursued, namely the adaptation of supply new submission which Article 42 (2) of to the reduced demand for steel. It has the Rules of Procedure prevents from been held by the Court that the being adduced. obligation of the Community institutions to ensure that in exercising their powers In fact, the Commission is by no means the burdens imposed on undertakings are ignorant of the situation of the Greek no greater than is required to achieve the steel industry, whose production, aims to be accomplished is not to be moreover, exceeds that of Denmark and measured in relation to the individual is nearly fifteen times greater than that situation of any particular group of of Ireland. undertakings.

3 In the alternative, the applicants argue that Decision N o 2794/80 is illegal because it fails to state properly the reasons on which it is based and because it infringes Articles 14, 58 and 74 of the ECSC Treaty; furthermore, the application of certain criteria laid down in that decision is said to entail discriminatory treatment against Greek undertakings in relation to other undertakings in the Community.

4 After the Commission had, by letters dated 13 March 1981, amended its original decisions pursuant, in particular, to Article 14 of Decision N o 2794/80, the two companies, by applications registered on 13 April 1981 under Nos 85 and 88/81, extended the actions to those amending decisions. They consider that, although those amendments are in general favourable to them, they do not dispose of any of the objections made against Decisions N o 2794/80 and N o 3381/80 and the application thereof to Greek under- takings.

JUDGMENT OF 16. 2. 1982 — JOINED CASES 39, 43, 85 AND 88/81

T h e a p p l i c a t i o n of D e c i s i o n s N o 2 7 9 4 / 8 0 a n d N o 3 3 8 1 / 8 0 to Greek undertakings

5 In the decisions fixing the applicants' production quotas the Commission stated that the decisions were adopted "on the basis of the Act concerning the accession of Greece, in particular Article 2 thereof, and pursuant to Article 3 of Decision N o 2794/80/ECSC and to Decision N o 3381/80/ ECSC".

HALYVOURGIKI v COMMISSION

T h e effect of D e c i s i o n s N o 2 7 9 4 / 8 0 a n d N o 3 3 8 1 / 8 0

9 Article 2 of the Act of Accession provides that "from the date of accession, the provisions of the original Treaties and the Acts adopted by the institutions of the Communities shall be binding on the Hellenic Republic and shall apply in that State under the conditions laid down in those Treaties and in this Act". In accordance with Article 2 of the Decision of the Council of 24 May 1979, Greece's accession to the European Coal and Steel Community took effect on 1 January 1981 with the deposit on that date of its instrument of accession. Read together, those two provisions show that it is with reference to 1 January 1981, rather than the date of the Council's decision or of the signing of the documents concerning accession, that it must be determined which acts of the institutions are binding on the Hellenic Republic and applicable in that State.

10 Articles 22 and 146 of the Act of Accession are not relevant to the issue raised. Those provisions apply only to acts of the institutions the adaptation of which, recognized to be necessary when the documents concerning accession were signed, had to be carried out during the interim period. As regards new measures to be adopted in that period, the institutions were aware of the imminent accession of Greece, which was given an opportunity to assert its interests where necessary, in particular through the information and consultation procedure described in an agreement annexed to the Final Act (Official Journal 1979, L 291, p. 191).

1 4 By virtue of the agreement annexed to the Final Act, entitled "Information and consultation procedure for the adoption of certain decisions", provisions were made in order to ensure that the Government of Greece was kept informed of any proposal or communication from the Commission which might lead to decisions by the Council other than administrative decisions.

15 Even if it is assumed that that obligation may be taken to extend to the draft of the decisions under Article 58 of the ECSC Treaty, which were to be adopted by the Commission itself, subject to the assent of the Council, the explanations given by the Commission show in any case that the information procedure was duly followed in the interim period. The applicants have not adduced any evidence to suggest that the Greek Government was not able to assert its interests with regard to the draft decisions of the Commission in accordance with the provisions of the agreement annexed to the Final Act.

T h e f i n d i n g of a s t a t e of c r i s i s

16 The applicants' argument that the finding of a state of crisis was not represen- tative of the situation in the Community after the accession of Greece ignores the fact that the existence of such a crisis must be ascertained in the light of the situation in the Community as a whole. Therefore the intro- duction of measures under Article 58 may not be ruled out even if under- takings in some Member States or some regions of the Community are less

HALYVOURGIKI v COMMISSION

affected than others by a widespread state of crisis. In any case, it has not been proved that the effect of Greece's entry into the Community was sub- stantially to alter the general situation of the market for steel products in the Community as a whole. The argument must therefore be rejected.

JUDGMENT OF 16. 2. 1982 — JOINED CASES 39, 43, 85 AND 88/81

21 It follows from the provisions cited that if production quotas are imposed they do not necessarily have to be accompanied by import restrictions. The introduction of such restrictions depends on the Commission's assessment of the state of the steel market and of the need to afford that market protection. That need depends in turn both on the possibility of disposing of existing production on the internal market and on external trade. But in this regard it is necessary to take into account obligations entered into by the Community towards non-member countries and the repercussions which the introduction of import restrictions might have on Community exports in general and on steel products in particular.

22 As the Court has already stressed in its judgment of 18 March 1980 in Joined Case 154, 205, 206, 226 to 228, 263 and 264/78, 39, 31, 83 and 85/79 SpA. Ferriera Valsabbia and Others [1980] ECR 907 and in its judgment of 16 February 1982 in Case 258/80 Rumi [1982] ECR 487, the taking into consideration of those factors requires the assessment of a complex economic situation, which means that the link established by Article 58 (1) between the introduction of production quotas and the imposition of restrictions on imports of competing products cannot be in any way automatic. The applicants have not been able to specify circumstances which might give reason to believe that the Commission exceeded the discretion which Articles 58 and 74 of the Treaty accord to it in this matter.

26 It follows from the foregoing t h a t the complaints of an infringement of Articles 58 a n d 74 must be rejected.

The complaint of discrimination

27 The applicants contend finally that the application of Decision N o 2794/80 led to discrimination against Greek undertakings because that decision was based, for the purpose of fixing the production quotas, on criteria to which Greek undertakings cannot be subjected. It is argued that those criteria relate to a period in which those undertakings were not yet subject to the rules of Community law. More precisely, the applicants refer in this regard, first, to the criterion adopted by Article 4 (3), concerning the average rate of utilization of production facilities, subject to the condition that the under- taking "undertook to comply from July 1977 to June 1980 with the delivery programmes established by the Commission", and, secondly, to the investment programmes duly reported and not the subject of an unfavourable opinion of the Commission which are referred to in Article 4 (4).

28 O n this point it need only be observed that, u n d e r the scheme of Decision N o 2 7 9 4 / 8 0 , the aim of both the provisions cited — w h i c h , m o r e o v e r , did n o t apparently play any part in d e t e r m i n i n g the applicants' q u o t a s — is t o help some u n d e r t a k i n g s by rectifying the results obtained by t a k i n g into a c c o u n t the reference p r o d u c t i o n figures defined by Article 4 (1) a n d (2).

JUDGMENT OF 16. 2. 1982 — JOINED CASES 39, 43, 85 AND 88/81

More precisely, the aim of the provisions cited by the applicants is to adapt the reference production figures of some undertakings, having regard to their participation during the period under consideration in voluntary reduction programmes and to the restrictions placed upon them as a result of the control exercised by the Commission over new investment. As those factors could not have affected Greek undertakings precisely because they were not yet subject to the rules of the Community, the measures taken to enable the reference production of undertakings belonging to the old Community to be assessed on an equitable basis cannot be regarded as discrimination against the Greek undertakings.

THE COURT

hereby:

1. Dismisses the applications;

2. Orders the applicants to pay the costs, including the costs incurred as a result of their applications for the adoption of interim measures, less

HALYVOURGIKI v COMMISSION

the costs which other parties were ordered to pay by orders of 16 September and 25 November 1981.

Those individual decisions were based on the general decisions of the Commission 1. Introduction N o 2794/80/ECSC of 31 October 1980 (Official Journal 1980, L 291) My opinion today concerns Joined Cases establishing a system of steel production 39, 43, 85 and 88/81, which still remain quotas for undertakings in the iron and to be dealt with following the steel industry and N o 3381/80/ECSC of withdrawal of the action brought be 23 December 1980 (Official Journal Metallurgiki Halyps SA. In these four 1980, L 355). According to the preamble cases two Greek steel producers seek to to Decision N o 2794/80, the main have declared void, under Article 33 reason for these crisis measures was the of the ECSC Treaty, the individual abrupt fall in demand for steel in the decisions by thich the Commission third quarter of 1980, both on the imposed production quotas on them for Community market and on the world

1 — Translated from the Dutch.