C-75/83
ECLI:EU:C:1983:283
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61983CO0075
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
ORDER OF THE COURT 19 OCTOBER 1983 1
SpA Fernere San Carlo v Commission of the European Communities
Case 75/83
In Case 75/83
SPA FERRIERE SAN CARLO, having its registered office at 1 Via Nazionale, Caino, Brescia, Italy, acting through its managing director, Faustino Busseni, surveyor, represented by its legal adviser, Fabrizio Massoni of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of André Elvinger, 15 Côte d'Eich,
applicant, v
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, represented by Sergio Fabro, a member of its Legal Department acting as Agent, 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 for a declaration that the Commission's decision of 24 March 1983 imposing a fine on the applicant for exceeding the steel production quotas allocated to it for the third and fourth quarters of 1981 is void.
THE COURT
composed of: J. Mertens de Wilmars, President, T. Koopmans, K. Bahlmann and Y. Galmot (Presidents of Chambers), P. Pescatore, Lord Mackenzie
1 — Language of the Case: French.
ORDER OF 19. 10. 1983 — CASE 75/83
Stuart , A. O'Keeffe , G. Bosco , O. Due , U. Everling and C. Kakouris , Judges ,
Advocate General : G. Reischl Registrar : P . Heim
makes the following
ORDER
Facts and conclusions of the 1831/81/ECSC and therefore concluded parties that the applicant company had not exceeded that part of the production quota which it was allowed to deliver 1. By application lodged at the Court within the common market during the Registry on 29 April 1983 SpA Fernere fourth quarter of 1981. As far as the San Carlo brought an action based on alleged over-production of 152 tonnes the Court's unlimited jurisdiction under was concerned, the Commission found the second paragraph of Article 36 of the that since the excess in question was ECSC Treaty challenging the decision below 500 tonnes and it was the first dated 24 March 1983 whereby the offence of that kind committed by the Commission fined it 87 540 ECU for undertaking, the applicant's circum exceeding by 152 tonnes the production stances were those in which the quota allocated to it for the third quarter Commission always refrained from of 1981, and for exceeding by 846 imposing a fine. tonnes the production quota which was deliverable within the common market assigned to it for the fourth quarter of 1981 pursuant to Decision No 1831 / 81 / 3. According to the latest versions of ECSC. their respective claims, San Carlo, for its part, requests the Court to record that the fine imposed on 24 March 1983 was 2. By a decision dated 1 June 1983 the revoked by the Commission and to order Commission withdrew the contested the Commission to pay costs of 200 decision of 24 March 1983 for the ECU by way of reimbursement of following reasons: with regard to the expenses incurred by its Counsel and alleged over-production of 846 tonnes 1 000 ECU by way of fees for the latter; the Commission was informed, after the the Commission, for its part, contends contested decision had been made, of the that the Court should record that the existence of stocks on 30 June 1981 Commission's decision of 1 June 1983 amounting to 1 028 tonnes. The Com repealed with "retroactive effect" its mission took the view that the stocks previous decision of 24 March 1983, and held on 30 June 1981 were not subject to should order each party to bear its own the rules established by Decision No costs in the present proceedings.
FERRIERE SAN CARLO v COMMISSION
4. As regards costs the applicant Article 36 of the ECSC Treaty the company relies, first, on the fact that the applicant company had been heard on competent officers of the Commission two occasions and had therefore been were aware of its stock levels on 30 June given an adequate opportunity to present 1981 prior to the issuance of the a defence. contested decision, and secondly on the fact that the Commission adopted its The Commission adds that it was the decision fining the applicant without "dilatory and inconsistent" conduct of giving it an opportunity to submit its the applicant company which caused the comments as required by Article 36 of present action and that in any case San the ECSC Treaty, thereby failing to Carlo had committed an offence, observe the principle of respecting the however minor, since there had been a rights of the defence. slight infringement of the quota limits which had escaped a penalty only on the 5. In rebuttal the Commission claims strength of an administrative policy. that it was not until 5 April 1983 — that is, after the contested decision — that However, the Commission states that at San Carlo sent it a telex notifying it of the present stage of the proceedings it the existence of a stock of finished has not incurred any refundable costs products falling outside the quota rules and it therefore takes the view that each established by Decision No 1831 / 81 / party should be ordered to bear its own ECSC, and that in accordance with costs.
Decision
6 The Commission contended that the withdrawal of the contested decision deprived the action of its purpose . The applicant company likewise took the view that the arguments adduced in support of its actions had become superfluous ; nevertheless, it did not expressly declare that its action was abandoned .
7 Having been rescinded , the contested decision is now inapplicable and the conclusion must therefore be that the action relates to a decision which can no longer have any adverse effect on the applicant company .
8 Since the action is therefore now devoid of purpose , it is unnecessary to rule on it.
ORDER OF 19. 10. 1983 — CASE 75/83
Costs
9 Under the terms of Article 69 (5) of the Rules of Procedure, where a case does not proceed to judgment the costs shall be in the discretion of the Court.
10 The Court takes the view that the circumstances of the dispute and the course of the procedure disclose adequate grounds for ordering the parties to bear their own costs without its being necessary to consider the merits of the arguments adduced in support of the action.
On those grounds,
THE COURT
hereby orders as follows :
1. It is not necessary to give a decision on the application by Ferriere San Carlo;
2. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Luxembourg, 19 October 1983.
P. Heim J. Mertens de Wilmars Registrar President