C-348/82

applicant, v

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, 200 Rue de la Loi, B-1049 Brussels, represented by Sergio Fabro, a member of 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,

APPLICATION to suspend the operation of Commission Decision C(82) 1631/3 of 24 November 1982 concerning a fine imposed on the applicant under Article 58 of the ECSC Treaty,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

makes the following

I — Summary of the facts established that the applicant had exceeded the production quota allocated to it for the third quarter of 1981 by 4 999 tonnes in respect of product Cate­ In the light of market trends and the gories V (reinforcing bars) and VI situation in the steel industry, the (merchant bars) and therefore imposed a Commission, by general Decision 2794/ fine of 374 925 (three hundred and 80/ECSC of 31 October 1980 (Official seventy-four thousand nine hundred and Journal L 291, p. 1), instituted a twenty-five) European currency units, or monitoring system and a system of 502 601 959 (five hundred and two production quotas for the period million six hundred and one thousand between 1 November 1980 and 30 June nine hundred and fifty-nine lire). That 1981. However, that system has been sum was to be paid within two months of extended to the present time subject to the date of the notification of the certain amendments, in particular by decision and was subject to a surcharge Commission Decision 1831/81/ECSC of of 1 % per month or part thereof in the 24 June 1981 (Official Journal L 180, event of any delay in paying. The p. 1), which was in turn amended applicant was notified of that decision on by Commission Decision 2804/81/ECSC 6 December 1982. of 23 September 1981 (Official Journal L 278, p. 1). By a letter dated 30 November 1982 the Commission informed the applicant that, in the event of proceedings' being According to Article 4 of Commission brought before the Court in respect of Decision 1831/81/ECSC the Com­ the decision imposing the fine, it would mission is to fix production quotas on a be prepared to delay execution thereof quarterly basis for several groups of provided that a bank guarantee was products. According to Articles 6 to 10 provided for payment of the fine, if it those quotas are to be fixed for each remained payable, together with default undertaking on the basis of the reference interest if appropriate. production of that undertaking and the application of abatement rates to the On 31 December 1982 the applicant reference production. Article 5 provides brought an action under Article 33 of the that the Commission is to inform each ECSC Treaty claiming that the decision undertaking of its reference production of 24 November 1982 imposing the fine and the production quotas resulting from should be declared void. That action is an application of the abatement rates. pending before the Court.

Decision C(82) 1631/3 of 24 November the stage of the interlocutory pro­ 1982. ceedings the arguments which it has put forward in its defence in the main action In its application the applicant states that the defendant refers to the fact that it is it has brought an action for a declaration not disputed that the quota has been that that decision is void. It contends exceeded. that it would suffer serious and irre­ parable damage if the contested decision were to be put into effect before the Furthermore, the defendant contends Court of Justice had delivered judgment that the applicant has not shown that the in the main action because the payment measure which it seeks is necessary and of the fine would involve the termination urgent in order to avoid serious and ir­ of its activities. reparable damage. In that connection it points out that the applicant does not In its observations lodged at the Court even refer to the possibility of obtaining Registry on 23 March 1983 the suspension against production of a bank defendant, the Commission, contends guarantee and that it has not yet that the Court should dismiss the requested to be allowed to pay the fine application to suspend the operation of by instalments. The defendant also points its decision of 24 November 1982 out that it has not yet requested the submitted by the applicant and that it Italian authorities to issue an order for should reserve the costs. the enforcement of the contested decision. In support of its conclusions the defendant states in essence that it has not been shown to be necessary on either factual or legal grounds to order III — Oral procedure suspension. The applicant has not submitted any argument indicating that Having been duly summoned, the parties there is sufficient likelihood that the presented oral argument at the hearing main action is admissible or well of the application for the adoption of the founded. Without wishing to repeat at interim measure on 19 April 1983.

THE PRESIDENT,

by way of interim decision,

hereby orders as follows :

1. The operation of Article 2 of Commission Decision C(82) 1631/3 of 24 November 1982 shall be suspended on condition that the applicant first produces a bank guarantee acceptable to the Commission guaranteeing payment of the fine imposed by the contested decision and default interest calculated at 1 % above the discount rate fixed by the Bank of Italy.

2. The costs are reserved.

Luxembourg, 20 April 1983