C-10/83
ECLI:EU:C:1983:104
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61983CO0010
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT 20 APRIL 1983 1
Metalgoi SpA v Commission of the European Communities
Case 10/83 R
Application for the adoption of interim measures — Suspension of operation — Suspension of operation of a decision imposing afine — Conditions governing the grant of interim measures — Form of a guarantee (ECSC Treaty, Art. 39, second para.)
In Case 10/83 R
METALGOI SPA , whose registered office is at 184 Viale S. Eufemia, Brescia, represented by G. A. Bergmann of the Milan Bar, F. Massoni of the Brussels Bar and G. Pellicano of the Milan Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of André Elvinger, 15 Côte d'Eich,
applicant, v
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEEN 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 Montako, a member of its Legal Department, Jean Monnet Building, Kirchberg,
defendant,
APPLICATION to suspend the operation of Commission Decision C(82) 1631/6 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
1 — Language of the Case: Italian.
ORDER OF 20. 4. 1983 — CASE 10/83 R
ORDER
I — Statement of the facts (one hundred and thirty-six million, five hundred and thirty-three thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine lire). That sum In the light of market trends and the was to be paid within two months of the situation in the steel industry, the date of the notification of the decision Commission, by general Decision 2794/ and was subject to a surcharge of 1% 80/ECSC of 31 October 1980 (Official per month or part thereof in the event of Journal L 291, p. 1), instituted a any delay in paying. monitoring system and a system of production quotas for the period On 18 January 1983 the applicant between 1 November 1980 and 30 June brought an action under Article 33 of the 1981. ECSC Treaty claiming that the decision of 24 November 1982 imposing the fine According to Article 3 of Commission should be declared void. Decision 2794/80/ECSC the Com mission is to fix production quotas on a quarterly basis for several groups of products. According to Articles 4 and 5 II — Written procedure those quotas are to be fixed for each undertaking on the basis of the reference production of that undertaking and the By application ' lodged at the Court application of abatement rates to the Registry on 15 March 1983 the applicant reference production. Article 3 provides applied under the second paragraph of that the Commission is to inform each Article 39 of the ECSC Treaty and undertaking of its reference production Article 83 (1) of the Rules of Procedure and the production quotas resulting from to suspend the operation of Commission an application of the abatement rates. Decision C(82) 1631/6 of 24 November 1982. By a letter dated 6 April 1981 the Commission informed the applicant of its In its application the applicant states that reference production and production it has brought an action for a declaration quotas for different ' types of steel that the decision is void, that it is a small products in respect of the second quarter steel undertaking and that the payment of 1981. of the fine would be prejudicial to the undertaking's financial position and By Decision C(82) 1631/6 of 24 would force it to take extreme measures November 1982 the Commission which would affect the level of established that the applicant had employment. exceeded the production quota allocated to it for the second quarter of 1981 by 1 358 tonnes in respect of product Group Furthermore, the applicant maintains IV (light sections, coiled wire rod, that the Commission's decision seems at concrete reinforcing bars and other first sight to be unjustified. The calcu merchant bars) and therefore imposed a lation of the excess above the quota fine of 101 850 (one hundred and one included certain sections which should thousand, eight hundred and fifty) not have been taken into account or European currency units, or 136 533 999 which, in any case, made up "the higher
METALGOI v COMMISSION
deliveries made on the ECSC market". the applicant relates to a different In addition the Commission wrongly product (Group VI) and a different rejected a request, made by the applicant period (the third quarter of 1981) and to under Article 14 of Decision 2794 / 80 / a delivery quota on the common market ECSC, for the quota to be altered. rather than a production quota.
In its observations lodged at the Court Furthermore the defendant contends that Registry on 23 March 1983 the the applicant has not shown that the defendant, the Commission, contends measure which it seeks is necessary and that the Court should dismiss the urgent in order to avoid serious and irre application to suspend the operation of parable damage. In that connection it its decision of 24 November 1982 points out that the applicant does not submitted by the applicant and that it even refer to the possibility of obtaining should reserve the costs. suspension against production of a bank guarantee and that it has not yet In support of its conclusions the requested to be allowed to pay the fine defendant states in essence that it has not by instalments. The defendant also points been shown to be necessary on either out that it has not yet requested the factual or legal grounds to order Italian authorities to issue an order for suspension. The applicant has not shown the enforcement of the contested that there is a sufficient likelihood that decision. the main action is admissible or well founded. Without wishing to repeat at the stage of the interlocutory pro III — Oral procedure ceedings the arguments which it has put forward in its defence in the main action, Having been duly summoned, the parties the defendant refers to the fact that it is presented oral argument at the hearing not disputed that the quota has been of the application for the adoption of exceeded, since the set-off claimed by interim measures on 19 April 1983.
Decision
1 According to Article 39 of the ECSC Treaty actions brought before the Court do not have suspensory effect. The Court may , however , if it considers that circumstances so require , order that application of the contested decision be suspended and may prescribe any other necessary interim measures .
2 Although the Commission contends that the Court should dismiss the application it is clear from its written and oral submissions that it does not object to the making of the order for suspension provided that the applicant
ORDER OF 20. 4. 1983 — CASE 10/83 R
produces a bank guarantee for payment of the fine, if it remains payable, together with default interest if appropriate. In adopting this view the Commission is abiding by a course of action which it adopted in 1981 and which may be regarded as justified provided that consideration is given in appropriate cases to the question whether there are special reasons why it should not be followed. The applicant, however, has not submitted any argument showing special reasons for the setting-aside of the proviso to which the Commission wishes the suspension to be subjected. There are therefore no grounds for departing from that condition.
On those grounds,
THE PRESIDENT,
by way of interim decision,
hereby orders as follows :
1. The operation of Article 2 of Commission Decision C(82) 1631/6 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 resenred.
Luxembourg, 20 April 1983
P. Heim J. Mertens de Wilmars
Registrar President