C-270/82

T H E C O U R T (Fourth Chamber)

composed of: T. Koopmans, President of Chamber, K. Bahlmann, P. Pescatore, A. O'Keeffe and G. Bosco, Judges,

Advocate General: Sir Gordon Slynn Registrar: H . A. Rühi, Principal Administrator

gives the following

ESTEL ν COMMISSION

JUDGMENT

Categoiy la A — Legal context hot-rolled wide strip for direct use and export, Confronted with a manifest crisis in the steel market within the meaning of hot-rolled wide strip for re-rolling or Article 58 of the ECSC Treaty, the other conversion processes in other Commission adopted general Decision Community undertakings, 2794/80/ECSC of 31 October 1980 plate with a thickness of 3 mm or more, (Official Journal 1980, L 291, p. 1), obtained by cutting hot-rolled wide strip, amended by Commission Decision 3333/ 80/ECSC of 19 December 1980 (Official hot-rolled strip less than 600 mm wide, Journal 1980, L 349, p. 21), establishing including tube strip, a system of steel production quotas for undertakings in the iron and steel cold-rolled plate of 3 mm and over (cut industry which was in force from 1 or coiled); October 1980 until 31 June 1981. In about the middle of 1981, the European Category Ib iron and steel industry was still in a period of manifest crisis and the cold-reduced sheet cut or coiled, with a Commission, by Decision 1831/81/ thickness of less than 3 mm, ECSC of 24 June 1981 (Official Journal 1981, L 180, p. 1), amended by Decision hot-rolled sheet in cut lengths, with a 1832/81/ECSC of 3 July 1981 (Official thickness of less than 3 mm, Journal 1981, L 184, p. 1), by Decision 2804/81/ECSC of 23 September 1981 cold- or hot-rolled sheet for the (Official Journal 1981, L 278, p. 1) and production of derived products of Cat­ by Decision 533/82/ECSC of 3 March egories Ic and Id in other Community 1982 (Official Journal 1982, L 65, p. 6), undertakings; established for undertakings in the iron and steel industry a new system of Categoiy Ic production quotas in respect of certain products, also based on Articles 47 and hot-dipped galvanized sheet, cut or 58 of the ECSC Treaty, which was coiled,

galvanized sheets for the production of Reference production for Categories la, Category Id products in other Ib, Ic and Id were calculated as follows: Community undertakings; the production of each of those cate- gories for the period of the 12 best months was converted into coil weight by applying various conversion coef- Category Id ficients. Division of those results by the production of hot-rolled wide and narrow strip in the same 12 best months yielded coefficients which were used to other coated flat products. derive from the reference production established for the products of Category I according to the calculation set out in Article 6 (1) the reference production for the derived products expressed in coil Article 5 of the decision provided that weight. Such reference production was the Commission was to fix, each quarter, then expressed as weights of derived for each undertaking, its production products by applying the conversion quota and the part of such quotas that coefficients. could be delivered in the common market, on the basis of the reference production and reference quantities of the undertaking concerned subject to Article 8 provided that the reference certain abatement rates. quantities used to establish the pro- portion of the quotas that could be delivered on the common market by each undertaking were to be calculated by Pursuant to Article 6 of Decision applying to its reference production the 1831/81, the reference production of percentage of its deliveries on the derived products in Categories la, Ib, Ic common market compared with its total and Id for undertakings producing hot- production during the period of the 12 rolled wide and narrow strip was best months. calculated on the basis of the reference production for Category I. That in turn was calculated by finding the. arith- metical mean of two figures: the first Under Article 9 (1) the Commission was figure was the arithmetical mean of to fix each quarter the abatement rates production in three periods: the year for establishing the production quotas 1974; the 12 calendar months — not and the part of those quotas that could necessarily'consecutive — of the period be delivered on the common market. from July 1977 to June 1980 during Under Article 9 (2) the Commission was which production of the four groups of to notify to each undertaking its rolled products I to IV, as defined in reference production and reference Article 2 of Decision 2794/80, was the quantities as well as its production highest; and the period of 12 months quotas and the part of those quotas that from July 1979 to June 1980. The second could be delivered on the common figure was an annual reference resulting market. from the production quotas fixed under Decision 2794/80 during the fourth quarter of 1980 and the first quarter of 1981, and was calculated according to a Article 10 of Decision 1931/81, which method specified in Article 6 (1) (b). was completely new, laid down a

By letter of 29 July 1981 the Com­ Production quota Delivery quota mission, pursuant to the aforementioned decision, notified to Estel its production Category Ia 574 082 382 243 quotas and the proportion of those quotas that could be delivered on the Category Ib 428 932 197 214 common market (hereinafter referred to as "delivery quotas") for the third quarter of 1981. For Categories la and lb, those quotas were fixed as follows (in On 26 March 1982 the Commission tonnes) : informed Estel that it has exceeded its production quota as well as the part of the quota that could be delivered on the common market for the third quarter of Production Delivery quotas 1981 by the following amounts: quotas

Category la 472 167 295 980 Production Delivery quota quota Category Ib 409 695 203 220 Category Ia 35 889 24 277 Category lb 13 842 2 373 Since that memorandum was of a pro­ visional nature, the Commission fixed

JUDGMENT OF 29. 2. 1984 — CASE 270/82

Pursuant to Article 36, second para- The Commission contends that the Court graph, of the ECSC Treaty, Estel should: brought the present action, which was lodged at the Court Registry on 30 1. Dismiss the application as unfounded; September 1982, for the annulment of the Commission's decision of 13 August 1982 which imposed upon it a fine for 2. Order the applicant to pay the costs. exceeding production and delivery quotas for the third quarter of 1981.

III — C o n t e n t i o n s and argu- m e n t s of t h e p a r t i e s II — P r o c e d u r e a n d c o n c l u s i o n s

In the first contention in its application Upon hearing the report of the Judge- the applicant maintains that it was wrong Rapporteur and the views of the of the Commission to find by Advocate General the Court decided to implication, that Estel had exceeded its open the oral procedure without any production and delivery quotas by preparatory inquiry. It did however ask 10 548 tonnes for products in Category Estel and the Commission to give a la — relating to products used by the

USTUL ν COMMISSION

In Estel's view, it follows from the The problem, according to Estel, is how foregoing that the only relevant question to "adjust the quota" in accordance with for the determination of whether the the aforementioned provision. The quota must be adjusted in accordance differing interpretations of the adjust­ with Article 10 is whether Estel delivers a ment method, of Estel and Eurofer on larger quantity to a particular customer

JUDGMENT OF 29. 2. 1984 — CASE 270/82

Esteľs method The Commission's of calculation method of calculation Estel's second contention is that the disputed Commission decision was (a) Deliveries incorrect in so far as it found that Estel during the had exceeded by 18 525 tonnes the reference production and delivery quota for period: 99 087 115 032 products of Category Ia, in particular (b) Reference those delivered to re-rolling mills and production imposed a fine upon Estel for doing so. less 31%: 68 371 80 507 These were deliveries to other iron and (c) Deliveries steel undertakings which had nothing to during the do with the "voluntary" quota system third adopted by iron and steel undertakings quarter: 145 182 146 770 within Eurofer. The Eurofer quotas for (d) Adjustment products of Category Ia are not identical ((c) less for every undertaking to the corre­ (b)): 76 811 66 263 sponding quotas fixed by the Com­ mission for the undertaking because, inter alia, Eurofer does not take into In Estel's method of calculation, (a) and account deliveries to re-rolling mills, so (b) vary according to the number of that the Commission quotas have to be purchasers included in (c) whose demand redistributed within Eurofer. Eurofer for small tubes increased, while in the undertakings have to submit to its Secre­ Commission's method of calculation, (a) tariat, before each quarter, forecasts of and (b) are constant. their deliveries to re-rolling mills. The

ESTEL ν COMMISSION

JUDGMENT OF 29. 2. 1984 — CASE 270/82

tonnes, less the excess over delivery In its fifth contention, in the alternative, quotas, namely 19 951 tonnes, that is Estel challenges the Commission's 24 800 tonnes — as part of the problems refusal, in fixing the amount of the fine, connected with exportation and should to take into consideration the circum- have fixed the penalty accordingly. stances which led to the quotas being exceeded, the blame attaching to Estel and the seriousness of the infringement.

The applicant is of the view that the That point of view is supported by purpose of the general decision had a report from Professor Tiedemann never been to impose cumulative (University of Freiburg im Breisgau, penalties on excesses over production Federal Republic of Germany) which the and delivery quotas. Both the preamble applicant annexed to its reply. to the decision and the text of Article 12 and the spirit thereof indicate that only the highest excess would be penalized by a fine. That interpretation had been confirmed by officials of the Com- Taking the view that all of Estel's mission, even though the Vice-President contentions concern the manner in which of the Commission, Mr Davignon, had the Commission applied Article 12 not replied to an enquiry from Eurofer of Decision 1831/81, the Commission on this point. argues, in its general observations, that the text of that article obliges it to fix the fines for all undertakings objectively and automatically so that generally the The applicant further maintains that to amounts of the fines vary only in prop- impose a double penalty is contrary to ortion to the excess over the quota. the general principles of criminal law as Subjective considerations connected to well as to the principles of sound the particular position of the undertaking management, of justice and of fairness, concerned have no place in that system. particularly when, as in the present case, The severity of the system is justified by the infringement involves a new decision the need to ensure that the quota system and quotas based thereon, notification of is effective, in view of the seriousness of which was late. the situation facing the iron and steel

In the alternative, the Commission As for the second contention, the answers each contention individually. As Commission also argues that Article 12 to the first contention, it maintains that of Decision 1831/81 did not permit it, Estel has effectively accepted the when fixing the fine, to take account of Commission's interpretation of Article 10 the subjective circumstances of the of Decision 1831/81 notified to Estel in undertaking. Therefore, Estel cannot the letter from the Commission of 3 claim that it was uncertain of the precise February 1982. Since that letter must be meaning and effects of the provisions on regarded as an individual decision which deliveries to re-rolling mills. Estel has not sought to have annulled, Estel cannot now attack it indirectly in the action against the decision disputed in the present proceedings. If the Court construes Article 12 differently, the Commission maintains in the alternative that Estel did in fact exceed the quotas concerned and that cannot be justified by new Eurofer rules With regard to the applicant's argument on the exchange of quotas. They were in that it exceeded its quota in good faith, fact internal Eurofer rules and no as a consequence of its different interpre­ concern of the Commission, a fact which tation of Article 10, the Commission Estel, moreover, admitted during the observes that that fact cannot be taken hearing. into consideration when applying Article 12 because that article provides for an objectively determined penalty for exceeding a quota and does not leave the Commission any discretion in determin­ The Commission further disputes Estel's ing the amount of the penalty. Likewise claim that deliveries to re-rolling mills do the degree of culpability and the not disturb the market and that they are seriousness of the contravention cannot a normal part of re-structuring, since the be treated as relevant factors in fixing products delivered by Estel in excess of the fine. its quota would otherwise have been delivered by another undertaking which might thus have made better use of its production capacity.

With regard to the contention that the Such an objection is admissible only in statement of the reasons for its decision so far as the individual decision is based was inadequate, the Commission con­ on the rules which are alleged to be tends that a more precise statement of unlawful, that is to say in the current, reasons was not necessary since it had case on Article 12 of Decision 1831/81. strictly and automatically applied Article The Commission further argues that the 12 of Decision 1831/81 which left it no objection that Article 12 is unlawful is discretion to take account of Subjective also inadmissible since it relates not only considerations. to the system of cumulating fines itself, but also to the legality of the system of fixing both the production quota and the part of that quota that may be delivered In general observations in its reply, the on the common market and would thus applicant argues that the Commission's have the effect of undermining the interpretation of Article 12 of Decision system of Article 5. However the legality 1831/81 is incorrect and inadmissible. of Article 5 cannot be disputed in the Estel maintains first that the Commission present proceedings either. has already deviated from its interpre­ tation in imposing upon Estel a penalty of less than 75 ECU per excess tonne, namely a fine of 15 E C U per tonne on If the Court decides that the objection of the lower excess tonnage. Secondly, the illegality is admissible, the Commission applicant denies that the text of Article maintains, in the alternative, that it is 12 is clear with the word "generally" not well founded. Article 12 is not indicating a strictly automatic procedure incompatible with Article 58 of the allowing the Commission no discretion. ECSC Treaty nor with the general In Joined Cases 154, 205, 206, 226 to principles of criminal law nor with the 228, 263 and 264/78, 39, 31, 83 and principles of prudence, reasonableness 85/79 (Judgment of 18 March 1980, and fairness. In the view of the Valsabbia and Others ν Commission Commission, the excess over the [1980] ECR 907, at p. 983), the

Commission itself put forward a different pecuniary sanctions imposed by the point of view, namely that the word Commission so the Court has a total "generally" implies that the Commission discretion with regard to all the circums­ may nonetheless take into consideration tances of law and of fact which have led individual circumstances. to the imposition of the sanction. The system advocated by the Commission would necessarily mean that legality would be reviewed with regard only to The applicant also refers to the view the grounds set out in Article 33 of the expressed in the opinion of Professor ECSC Treaty, and that would be Tiedemann that Article 12 does not contrary to Article 36 of the Treaty. exclude some degree of "individuali­ zation" since the terms of the provision themselves state that the fine is only "generally" of 75 ECU. That assertion is In any event, there is nothing in the confirmed by the use of the verb "may" ECSC Treaty, or in particular in Article instead of "must" in the second 58, empowering or authorising the paragraph of Article 12. If the Commission to take account of Commission had wished to establish a individual circumstances. new system of automatic sanctions with wider scope, that should have been stated unambiguously in the text of the decision. The Commission had acted simul­ taneously in breach of the fundamental principles of natural justice, namely the principles nullum crimen, nulla poena sine Moreover, the applicant submits that the lege, and nulla poena sine culpa, of the Commission's view is not compatible principle of proportionality and of the with Article 36 of the ECSC Treaty. The "principle of equality", whose place in Commission was in breach of the first the law of the Member States and in paragraph of Article 36 under which it Community law was demonstrated in the must, before imposing a pecuniary report of Professor Tiedemann and in an sanction, give the party concerned the article by Professor Jescheck. Moreover opportunity to submit its comments. the Court has also recognized that an That "right to be heard" is one aspect of error may in any event influence the the fundamental legal right to a "fair amount of a sanction. The concept of an procedure" and constitutes an essential "objective" and "automatic" fine, on the procedural requirement. Although the other hand, is contrary to the law of decision records that Estel's observations most Member States, as was also shown had been examined, the Commission in the Tiedemann report. took no account of them and now declares in addition that it was not in a position to do so because of the terms of Article 12. As a result Estel's right to be Returning to its first contention, Estel heard was deprived of any value. points out that during the third quarter of 1982, the Commission did not expressly specify how the adjustment of quotas pursuant to Article 10 was to be carried out. The method applied by Estel Moreover the second paragraph of was fair and entirely justifiable, and Estel Article 36 provides that the Court has was not aware that it was prohibited to unlimited jurisdiction in appeals against exceed the quotas. Following publication

In answer to Estel's second contention, the Commission admits that it had With regard to the statement of reasons indeed declared its readiness, when for the decision, the applicant submits applying of Article 11 (4) to exchanges that they were not only insufficient, but or sales of quotas, to take account of also ambiguous and contradictory, and what was arranged by Eurofer. However that the decision is therefore illegal. In that did not mean that it was bound to those circumstances there is a breach of take into account any misunderstanding Community law independently of the caused by an undertaking or a disa- question whether or not the Commission greement within Eurofer concerning its was empowered and obliged to impose a internal rules. In any event, there had fine automatically. been several ways open to Estel of

ESTEL ν COMMISSION

avoiding exceeding its quota for the third not subjective factors specific to the quarter of 1981. understanding. It points out, in addition, that Article 12 provides that fines shall be imposed and not merely that they may be imposed.

The Commission repeats that the general principles of Community law cited by Estel have not been violated and that Estel's arguments on those points are not With regard to the fine of 15 ECU pel­ well founded. Article 12 is not an tonne that it imposed upon Estel for imprecise and uncertain provision open exceeding the delivery quota, the to different interpretations; the principle Commission observes that it related to a in dubio pro reo is therefore not separate infringement and that in applicable here. Estel's argument based reducing the standard fine it had taken on the maxim nullum crimen sine lege is into consideration the fact that there not relevant to the facts of the case. Estel were two infringements side by side and was mistaken not as to whether what it

JUDGMENT OF 29. 2. 1984 — CASE 270/82

The Court invited Estel and the Commission to give their views on the question whether the production in respect of which the fines referred to V — Oral procedure in Annex 10 to the application were imposed was also the subject-matter of a fine imposed by the Commission for infringement of Decision 1831/81. At the sitting on 19 October 1983 oral argument was presented by the following: T. R. Ottervanger, Advocate, for Estel, and R. Wägenbaur and J. Estel replied to the question in the affir­ Bourgeois, members of the Commission's mative. With regard to the exports Legal Department, acting as Agents, referred to in the third complaint, it assisted by P. V. F. Bos, Advocate, for added that the Commission, like the the Commission. Eurofer arbitrators, had imposed a fine in respect of the total excess over production quotas less the total excess over delivery quotas. The difference The Advocate General delivered his between the two excesses could be opinion at the sitting on 30 November ascribed to exports to the United States. 1983.

ESTEL ν COMMISSION

Decision

1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 30 September 1982, the company Estel N V (hereinafter referred to as "Estel"), of Nijmegen, brought an action under Articles 33 and 36, second paragraph, of the ECSC Treaty for a declaration that the Commission Decision of 13 August 1982 imposing on it a fine of 3 655 590 ECU, that is to say HFL 9 520 472 is void.

2 The reasons given for the decision are based on the fact that during the third quarter of 1981 Estel exceeded by 30 909 tonnes the production quota for Category Ia products, by 13 842 tonnes that for Category Ib products and by 19 951 tonnes the portion of the production quota for Category la products which could be delivered within the common market; those quotas had been allocated to Estel under the system of production quotas introduced by Commission Decision 1831/81/ECSC of 24 June 1981 (Official Tournai 1981, L 180, p. 1).

5 By the present action the applicant claims primarily that the decision imposing the fine should be declared void, either wholly or in part, or, in the alternative, that the fine should be reduced to nil or to such amount as the Court may think fit. The submissions put forward in support of the application concern the absence of fault and the existence of special circum- stances, the breach of general principles of law and failure to give adequate reasons for the decision.

T h e e x i s t e n c e of s p e c i a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s

6 The applicant maintains that because of the special circumstances of this particular case no fine could be imposed, or the fine should at least have been reduced. In that connection the applicant argues primarily that the Commission's implied complaint in two isolated cases in which quotas were exceeded was misconceived and, in the alternative, that the Commission refused, in fixing the amount of the fine, to take into account the circum- stances which led to the quotas being exceeded, the blame attaching to Estel and the degree of gravity of the infringement; with regard to a third isolated case, the applicant again maintains that, the Commission failed to take into account the particular circumstances in which the quota was exceeded, the low degree of blame attaching to Estel and the degree of gravity of the infringement.

7 In those isolated cases the quotas for the following products were exceeded: Category la products used by buyers in the manufacture of small tubes (heading 1 below), Category Ia products delivered to re-rolling mills

9 With reference to the method of calculation to be used in adjusting the quota, as provided for in the above-mentioned article, the applicant claims that it was entitled to believe in good faith at the beginning of and during the third quarter of 1981 that the Commission would apply the same method as the applicant and that it neither knew nor could have known that the Commission would apply a different method less favourable to the applicant until it received a telex message from the Commission on 1 December 1981. Furthermore, the applicant maintains that the Commission itself did not arrive at a final opinion on the applicable method until about the middle of November 1981 and that it only informed the applicant of its opium in a letter of 3 February 1982. The Commission thus infringed Article 36 of the ECSC Treaty and also several general principles of Community law, namely the principles of legality ("nullum crimen sine lege"), proportionality and equality.

10 The Commission contends that neither subjective considerations such as Estel's alleged good faith, nor the special circumstances, nor the degree of blame, nor the gravity of the infringement could be taken into account in fixing the fine since, according to Article 12 of the general decision, the fine is of a strict and automatic nature, so that the Commission fixes it with reference only to the amount of excess production and has no discretion in determining the amount of the penalty. It maintains, in the alternative, that

JUDGMENT OF 29. 2. 1984 — CASE 270/82

Estel knowingly took the risk of over-producing and that in order to avoid this it could have asked the Commission for the correct interpretation of Article 10, as other undertakings did. Moreover, the Commission had informed Eurofer — a private association of organizations and undertakings in the European steel industry, whose object is cooperation between its members and the protection of their interests, particularily vis-à-vis the Commission — of the method of calculation in a letter of 10 November 1981, which referred to previous discussions. Finally, the Commission maintains that Estel did in the end admit that the Commission's method was correct and did not dispute the quotas.

ESTEL ν COMMISSION

takings could not apply for adjustment of the quota and authorization to make the relevant deliveries until after the deliveries had been made, with the result that, if the Commission adjusted the quota, it did not do so until after the end of the quarter concerned, as in the present case.

1 4 It "follows that during the period in question undertakings may have been in a state of uncertainty as to the method to be applied for calculating the adjustment, although the method applied by the applicant was not the only reasonable one.

15 In those circumstances the Commission should itself have informed the undertakings concerned of the method of calculation which it intended to apply and should have done so at the beginning of the quarter in question. Since it did not do so, it contributed to the uncertainty over the correct method of calculation. Although Estel could have avoided exceeding its quota by asking the Commission to provide it with the method of calcu­ lation, the proper administration of the steel-quota system is clearly the Commission's responsibility.

16 There are therefore grounds for finding, in the applicant's favour, that a situation existed which warranted an assessment different from that of the Commission with regard to the gravity of the infringement and the fine which should be imposed for the excess production.

2. Products delivered to re-rolling mills

20 The supplementary argument of Estel to the effect that the excess production was part of the restructuring of the steel industry and that it did not disturb the market cannot be accepted in relation to a system based on the allocation of well-defined production quotas to particular undertakings, with a view to combatting a manifest crisis in the steel industry.

21 This submission must therefore be rejected.

3. Deliveries on the North American market

22 The applicant claims that the Commission was wrong not to take into account, in fixing the amount of the fine, the fact that the applicant had exceeded the production quota in respect of deliveries on the North American market as a result of specific problems connected with exportation

ESTEL ν COMMISSION

to that market and that when the contracts in question were concluded the continuation of the production quota system beyond 30 June 1981 and the specific character of the system were not foreseeable. The deliveries in the area of the Great Lakes could only be made in summer since the climate of that region is such as to render buyers inaccessible throughout the remainder of the year. Furthermore, Estel was not able to buy or exchange enough quotas to avoid excess production.

JUDGMENT OF 29. 2. 1984 — CASE 270/82

applicant maintains, contrary to Article 58 (4) of the ECSC Treaty and to various general principles of Community law, in particular the principles of sound administration, justice and fairness.

26 The Commission replies that Article 12 does not provide for a double fine for a single infringement, but for two distinct fines for two separate infringements, and is therefore compatible with Article 58 of the ECSC, Treaty and with the general principles of law. With regard to the supposed ¡Illegality of Article 12, the Commission raises an objection of inadmissibility against this submission, in so far as it is directed against Decision 1831/81 as a whole and in particular Article 5.

27 It must be pointed out that Article 5 of Decision 1831/81, in conjunction with Article 12 of the same decision, imposes two distinct obligations on the undertakings concerned, namely an obligation to comply with the production quotas and an obligation to refrain from exceeding the portion of those quotas which may be delivered within the common market. Whilst the restriction of deliveries within the common market serves to restore the balance of supply and demand within that market, the restriction of the total production of undertakings is designed essentially to avoid surplus production which, because of the crisis, could not be disposed of even by way of export. It is apparent therefore that the two restrictions are intended to protect two distinct interests of the Community; that conclusion is confirmed by Point 5 of the preamble to the decision.

T h e a m o u n t of t h e fine

32 In accordance with paragraph 16 above, the fine imposed by the Commission should be reduced, solely in so far as it relates to the production of 10 548 tonnes in excess of the production quotas for Category la products. The total fine should therefore be fixed at 3 260 040 ECU.

Costs

33 According to Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs. However, under Article 69 (3), where each party succeeds on some heads and fails on others, or where the circum­ stances are exceptional, the Court may order that the parties bear their own costs in whole or in part.

34 Since both the applicant and the Commission have succeeded in some of their submissions and failed in others, they should bear their own costs.

On those grounds,

Koopmans Bahlmann

Pescatore O Keeffe Bosco

Delivered in o p e n c o u r t in L u x e m b o u r g o n 29 February 1984.

J. A. Pompe T. Koopmans Deputy Registrar President of the Fourth Chamber

O P I N I O N O F A D V O C A T E G E N E R A L SIR G O R D O N S L Y N N D E L I V E R E D O N 30 N O V E M B E R 1983

My Lords, Category la products by 30 909 tonnes, its production quota of Category lb products by 13 842 tonnes and the amount of Category Ia products which it This is an action brought by a Dutch was authorized to deliver in the common steel producer (Estel), which is a member market by 19 951 tonnes. In the alter- of the European Confederation of Iron native to the claim for annulment Estel and Steel Industries ("Eurofer"), for the asks that the fine should be reduced. annulment of a decision of the Com- mission dated 13 August 1982 which imposed a fine of 3 655 590 ECU on Estel. The basis of the decision was that, in the third quarter of 1981, Estel There is little or no dispute as to the infringed Commission Decision 1831/81 facts. The issues concern the interpre- of 24 June 1981 (OJ L 180, 1. 7. 1981, p. tation and proper application of the 1) in exceeding its production quota for Decision.