SA Piraiki-Patraiki and others v Commission of the European Communities (11/82)

(b)Errors and inadequacies in the statement of reasons

According to the applicants the decision at issue contains virtually no statement of reasons validly justifying both the necessity of adopting protective measures and the content of those measures.They point out that the Commission:does not explain in what way the production and marketing of combed cotton yarn constitutes a ‘sector’ within the meaning of Article 130;combines the conditions of application of that article (sectoral difficulties and regional difficulties) without showing in what way each condition is properly met;does not take into account the situation of the Greek producers of cotton yarn or the harmful effects which the measures adopted would have for those undertakings;does not mention the figures for imports to France from all sources of combed cotton yarn, the rate of increase of imports from other souces or even data regarding French consumption of that product, the information which would make it possible to assess the real effect on the French market of imports from Greece.The Commission replies that the first two alleged defects raised by the applicants in no way differ from the arguments which have already been discussed with regard to the alleged failure to observe the conditions of application of Article 130.With regard to the situation of the Greek undertakings, the responsible departments of the Commission entered into contact both with the producers and with the Greek authorities. Furthermore, the Commission must be able to rely, in addition to the data at its disposal, on the information provided by the Member State requesting authorization, since the responsible departments cannot check that information within the limited time available. The Commission also points out that although it is not obliged to contact the Member State which could be harmed by the protective measures, it did in fact do so in this case.As for the data whose absence is referred to by the applicants, some of them appear in the preamble to the contested decision; the remainder are superfluous. Referring to theReferring to the opinion of Advocate General Dutheillet de Lamothe in Case 37/70, Rewe-Zentrale ([1971] ECR 23), the Commission emphasizes that the applicants have adduced no evidence of a major infringement of a procedural requirement or of a misuse of power. Nor have they established a manifest error on the part of the Commission. They do not indicate what other measures should have been adopted.In their reply the applicants insist that the Commission failed to contact the authorities and undertakings of the State which would be affected by the protective measures. In their view such consultation is neither a polite gesture nor an end in itself, but the only way in which the Commission can assess in an effective and equitable manner the harm which would be suffered by the undertakings affected by the measures envisaged.