Judgment_paragraph 2. · SpA Metallurgica Rumi v Commission of the European Communities (258/80)

2.Determination of the production quotas (infringement of the ECSC Treaty, in particular Article 58. In the alternative, infringement of essential procedural requirements)Pointing out that Article 58 of the ECSC Treaty provides that the Commission “shall, on the basis of studies made jointly with undertakings and associations of undertaking, determine the quotas on an equitable basis”, the applicant complains that the consultation of the undertakings which took place was purely formal and that in reality the quotas were fixed unilaterally by the Commission. Although the applicant concedes that the Association of Independent Italian Steel Producers was invited to three meetings on 4, 17 and 30 October, it clıims that the Association had neither the time nor the means to put forward its counterproposals to two aspects of the quota system, which was presented in the course of those meetings to the representatives of the Association as a “Diktat”. The two aspects in question are the method of calculating the quotas and the percentage reductions by groups of products announced within minimum and maximum limits within which the Commission reserved the right to fix the coefficient.The applicant further claims, in the alternative, that an essential procedural requirement was infringed. The Court has in fact in a number of decisions treated as equivalent to such an infringement the absence of the required assent and consultations (cf. Case 6/54 Netherlands v High Authority [1954 to 1956] ECR 103, pp. Ill to 112, and Joined Cases 154/78 etc. Valsabbia and Others v Commission [1980] ECR 907, paragraph 37, p. 999).In this connection the Commission remarks that it had due regard for the opinions expressed both by the undertakings and by the Council, as is established by the numerous differences between the Commission's proposals contained in its communication to the Council (Annex I to the statement of defence) and the terms of the decision adopted.The applicant was able to put forward its opinion through the association of which it is a member. In fact Mr Carlo Rumi was present in person at the meeting on 17 October 1980 and gave his views there. The applicant replies by developing the arguments which it advanced in its application concerning the consultation of the Italian undertakings. It furthermore deplores the fact that the Commission failed to have regard for the views expressed.In its rejoinder the Commission replies that it can only refer to what it has said on this subject in its statement of defence.

SpA Metallurgica Rumi v Commission of the European Communities (258/80)

Key facts

Connections

History · 1 version