Empresa Nacional Siderúrgica SA (Ensidesa) v Commission of the European Communities (C-198/99 P)

Judgment of 2 Oct 2003

law://eu/cjeu/1999/c-198-99/para_67@2026-11-13

67Those paragraphs are worded as follows:395 Even assuming that, after the end of the period of manifest crisis, some doubt could have remained as to the actual scope of Article 65(1) of the Treaty or as to the Commission's position in that regard, given its ambiguous attitude up to 30 June 1988 (see, in that respect, paragraphs 491 to 502 of the judgment being delivered today in Case T-141/94 Thyssen [Stahl] v Commission), this circumstance cannot prevent the actions of the applicant after that date and, more specifically, after 1 January 1989 from being characterised as infringements. In that regard, the Court has already referred to the case-law of the Court of Justice according to which the prohibition laid down in Article 65(1) of the Treaty is of strict application and characterises the system established by the Treaty (Opinion 1/61 [of 13 December 1961 [1961] ECR 243], p. 262)....409 It is true that, within that context, the Commission was pursuing a general objective of preserving a balance between supply and demand, and consequently of stability in the general level of prices, intended to allow steel undertakings to become profitable again (see, for instance, the internal DG III note of 24 October 1988 concerning the meeting with the industry on 27 October 1988, DG Ill's summary of 10 May 1989 of the consultation meeting of 27 April 1989, DG Ill's summary of 28 October 1989 of the consultation meeting of 26 October 1989, and the internal DG III note of 8 November 1989 concerning a meeting with producers on 7 November 1989)....414 It is true that many of the documents relating to the meetings between the industry and DG III refer to price forecasts.415 Equally, it is clear, a posteriori, from all of the documents produced before the Court that some of the information given to DG III concerning future prices of beams was derived from the agreements reached within the [Eurofer Committee, called the “Poutrelles Committee” (“the Poutrelles Committee”)] (see, in particular, the minutes of the Poutrelles Committee meetings of 10 January 1989, 19 April 1989, 6 June 1989 and 11 July 1989 in conjunction with the minutes and speaking notes relating to the consultation meetings of 26 January 1989, 27 April 1989 and 27 July 1989).416 However, the Court finds that, at that time, the officials of DG III were not in a position to tell that, among the extensive information which Eurofer provided to them concerning, in particular, the general market situation, stocks, imports and exports and demand trends, the information on prices came from agreements between undertakings.’

Empresa Nacional Siderúrgica SA (Ensidesa) v Commission of the European Communities (C-198/99 P)

History · 1 version

Key facts

Connections