C-340/85

My Lords, of 2 March 1983 on 9 March 1983. It asked accordingly for (i) authorization to carry forward the unused parts of quotas from the second and following quarters of 1982 to the first quarter of 1983, (ii) authorization to carry forward the unused parts of quotas By a decision dated 1 February 1983 from the first to the second quarter of 1983 addressed to the steel undertaking Acciaierie on the grounds that it had received the e Ferriere di Porto Nogaro SpA ('Porto decision of 2 March 1983 too late to be able Nogaro') the Commission fixed that under­ to use up the extra quotas within the first taking's production quotas and quotas for quarter of 1983 and (iii) a further delivery within the common market in the adjustment of its delivery quotas. By a letter first quarter of 1983 at 1 360 tonnes and of 22 March 1983 the Commission rejected 904 tonnes respectively for Category V the third of these requests and replied that products (reinforcing bars) and 8 578 tonnes the second was being studied and would be and 5 670 tonnes respectively for Category answered as soon as possible. However, no VI products (merchant bars). By a decision answer was ever given. dated 2 March 1983 the Commission increased the quotas for the first quarter of 1983 in respect of Category V products to 8 901 tonnes and 5 920 tonnes respectively and reduced the quotas for Category VI products to 6 606 tonnes and 4 366 tonnes respectively, to take account of the instal­ By another decision dated 2 March 1983, lation of a second rolling mill. The latter the Commission fixed Porto Nogaro's decision also increased the Category V production and delivery quotas for the quotas and reduced the Category VI quotas second quarter of 1983 at 9 069 tonnes and for the second, third and fourth quarters of 6 046 tonnes respectively for Category V 1982. The last paragraph of the decision products and 6 606 tonnes and 4 366 tonnes states: 'These provisions apply from the respectively for Category VI products. second quarter of 1982 to the first quarter of 1983; however, in view of the date of this decision, you are authorized to carry forward from the second to the following quarters until the first quarter of 1983, after notifying the Commission, the parts of the The Commission later formed the view that quotas assigned to you which have not been Porto Nogaro had exceeded its quotas in used up in the quarters in question'. both the first and the second quarters of 1983. It imposed no fine in respect of the first quarter of 1983; but it found that, during the second quarter of 1983, Porto Nogaro had exceeded the production quota for Category V products by 1 765 tonnes, By a telex of 10 March 1983 Porto Nogaro the production quota for Category VI stated that it had only received the decision products by 2 484 tonnes and the delivery

By an application lodged at the Court on 14 November 1985, Porto Nogaro claimed that As regards Category V products where the the Court should declare void the quotas were increased, there was something Commission's decision of 9 October 1985 which could, if authorized, have been imposing that fine or, in the alternative, carried forward from the first to the second reduce the fine ex aequo et bono in quarter of 1983: an unused part of the consideration of the applicant's having acted production quota of 2 686 tonnes. Porto in good faith. Porto Nogaro argued, firstly, Nogaro never received a substantive that the alleged overproduction and response to its request of 10 March 1983 to excessive deliveries for the second quarter of carry this amount forward. In my view, the 1983 should not be regarded as breaches of Commission's silence cannot be interpreted the respective quotas, inasmuch as the as an authorization to carry forward, company found it physically impossible, on though since it promised an answer in its account of their late assignment, to produce letter of 22 March 1983, it is unsatisfactory and deliver the quantities under the quotas that the Commission subsequently did not which were not granted by the Commission provide one. However, it is plain from the until the end of the first quarter of 1983. recitals to the decision of 9 October 1985 Porto Nogaro, secondly, alleged that its that the Commission took into account that request to have those quotas automatically the matter had been left unclear; carried forward to the following quarter accordingly it gave Porto Nogaro the (the second quarter of 1983) was not benefit of the doubt by deducting the entire considered by the Commission in Category V production quota remaining accordance with the logic of the previous unused at the end of the first quarter of decision to grant such quantities and 1983 from the quantity in respect of which therefore contrary to its previous indication it imposed the fine. The figure of 1 765 of willingness to do so. tonnes, in respect of which the fine was imposed, was reached after that deduction.

It follows that the first ground advanced in zations should be granted. The the application provides no reason to annul Commission's letter of 22 March 1983 the decision either in respect of Category V cannot be construed as an implied authori­ products or in respect of Category VI zation to carry forward. In my opinion products. there occurred nothing in this case to give rise to any legitimate expectation that a The second ground advanced in the concession of the kind granted for the application is that by authorizing the quarters up to and including the first carrying forward of unused quotas in quarter of 1983 would continue to be previous quarters the Commission was granted. The second submission in the bound to allow a carry-forward from the application therefore in my view falls to be first to the second quarter of 1983 as well. I dismissed. do not accept that argument. The authori­ zation to carry forward granted in the Since the contested decision of 9 October Commission's decision of 2 March 1983 was 1985 already gives the applicant the benefit expressly limited to the first quarter of 1983. of doubts which may have arisen and since In my view that cannot be construed as an the rate per tonne of excess is fixed at 50 expression of willingness to allow further ECU rather than 75 ECU, there is in my carrying forward, nor does the fact of that view no justification for interfering with the decision imply that any further authori­ amount of the fine.

Accordingly, the claim should be rejected and the applicant ordered to pay the costs.