European Independent Steelwork Association v Commission of the European Communities. [1984] EUECJ C-45/84R (28 March 1984)

[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [ DONATE ] Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) >> European Independent Steelwork Association v Commission of the European Communities. [1984] EUECJ C-45/84R (28 March 1984) URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1984/C4584R.html Cite as: [1984] EUECJ C-45/84R [ New search ] [ Help ] IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The source of this judgment is the web site of the Court of Justice of the European Communities . The information in this database has been provided free of charge and is subject to a Court of Justice of the European Communities disclaimer and a copyright notice . This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment. 61984O0045 Order of the Court of 28 March 1984. European Independent Steelwork Association v Commission of the European Communities. Suspension of the operation of a measure. Case 45/84 R. European Court reports 1984 Page 01759 APPLICATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES - SUSPENSION OF OPERATION - CONDITIONS FOR GRANT THEREOF - URGENCY - NONE , BECAUSE OF UNDERTAKINGS GIVEN TO THE COURT ( ECSC TREATY , ART . 39 ; RULES OF PROCEDURE , ART . 82 ( 2 )) IN CASE 45/84 R EUROPEAN INDEPENDENT STEELWORKS ASSOCIATION , AN ASSOCIATION OF UNDERTAKINGS FORMED UNDER THE LAW OF BELGIUM , WHOSE REGISTERED OFFICE IS AT 21 RUE DUCALE , BRUSSELS , REPRESENTED BY MICHEL WAELBROECK OF THE BRUSSELS BAR , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF ERNEST ARENDT , 34 RUE PHILIPPE-II , APPLICANT , V COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , 200 RUE DE LA LOI , 1049 BRUSSELS , REPRESENTED BY R . WAGENBAUR OF ITS LEGAL DEPARTMENT , ACTING AS AGENT , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF MANFRED BESCHEL , JEAN MONNET BUILDING , KIRCHBERG , DEFENDANT , APPLICATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 39 OF THE ECSC TREATY FOR THE SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF ARTICLE 15 B OF COMMISSION DECISION NO 234/84/ECSC OF 31 JANUARY 1984 ON THE EXTENSION OF THE SYSTEM OF MONITORING AND PRODUCTION QUOTAS FOR CERTAIN PRODUCTS OF UNDERTAKINGS IN THE STEEL INDUSTRY , 1 ON 20 FEBRUARY 1984 THE APPLICANT BROUGHT AN ACTION IN WHICH IT REQUESTED THE COURT TO DECLARE VOID ARTICLE 15 B OF COMMISSION DECISION NO 234/84/ECSC OF 31 JANUARY 1984 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , 1984 , L 29 ) ON THE EXTENSION OF THE SYSTEM OF MONITORING AND PRODUCTION QUOTAS FOR CERTAIN PRODUCTS OF UNDERTAKINGS IN THE STEEL INDUSTRY . 2 AT THE SAME TIME THE APPLICANT MADE AN APPLICATION FOR THE SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF THAT ARTICLE OF THE DECISION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 39 OF THE ECSC TREATY . 3 IN SUPPORT OF ITS APPLICATION THE APPLICANT ARGUES THAT ARTICLE 15 B OF THE DECISION COMPLETES THE IMPLEMENTATION BY THE COMMISSION OF THE POLICY OF FREEZING TRADITIONAL PATTERNS OF TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES , ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL ON 22 DECEMBER 1983 . 4 ARTICLE 15 B OF DECISION NO 234/84 PROVIDES THAT A MEMBER STATE MAY SUBMIT A COMPLAINT TO THE COMMISSION IF IT ESTABLISHES , WITH REGARD TO CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF STEEL PRODUCTS , THAT DELIVERIES OF PRODUCTS IN ONE OF THOSE CATEGORIES HAVE BEEN ALTERED DURING A QUARTER TO A SIGNIFICANT EXTENT COMPARED WITH TRADITIONAL DELIVERIES . AFTER EXAMINING WHETHER THE COMPLAINT IS JUSTIFIED , IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURES LAID DOWN IN THE DECISION , THE COMMISSION MAY REQUEST THE UNDERTAKINGS IN QUESTION TO GIVE A COMMITMENT IN WRITING THAT , DURING THE FOLLOWING QUARTER , THEY WILL CORRECT THE IMBALANCE IN THEIR TRADITIONAL DELIVERIES . IF AN UNDERTAKINGS DOES NOT GIVE SUCH A COMMITMENT , OR IF THE COMMITMENT IS NOT HONOURED , THE COMMISSION MAY , PURSUANT TO THAT PROVISION , REDUCE THE PART OF THE UNDERTAKING ' S QUOTA WHICH MAY BE DELIVERED IN THE COMMON MARKET FOR THE FOLLOWING QUARTER BY A QUANTITY NOT EXCEEDING THAT WHICH CAUSED THE IMBALANCE IN TRADITIONAL DELIVERIES . 5 ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 39 OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY , ACTIONS BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT DO NOT HAVE SUSPENSORY EFFECT . THE COURT MAY , HOWEVER , IF IT CONSIDERS THAT CIRCUMSTANCES SO REQUIRE , ORDER THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE CONTESTED DECISION BE SUSPENDED . IT MAY ALSO PRESCRIBE ANY OTHER NECESSARY INTERIM MEASURES . 6 ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 83 ( 2 ) OF THE COURT ' S RULES OF PROCEDURE , THE COURT MAY SUSPEND THE OPERATION OF A MEASURE OR GRANT OTHER INTERIM MEASURES ONLY WHERE THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO URGENCY AND FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS ESTABLISHING A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR SUCH MEASURES . 7 ARTICLE 15 B WAS ADOPTED ON THE BASIS , IN PARTICULAR , OF ARTICLE 58 OF THE TREATY . THAT ARTICLE PERMITS THE COMMISSION , IN THE EVENT OF A REDUCTION IN DEMAND AMOUNTING TO A MANIFEST CRISIS , TO ESTABLISH PRODUCTION QUOTAS . THOSE QUOTAS MUST BE DETERMINED ON AN EQUITABLE BASIS , TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE PRINCIPLES SET OUT IN ARTICLES 2 , 3 AND 4 OF THE ECSC TREATY , WHICH IN THE LAST-MENTIONED ARTICLE DECLARES QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS ON THE MOVEMENT OF STEEL PRODUCTS TO BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE COMMON MARKET FOR COAL AND STEEL . 8 SINCE THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 15 B WILL BE USED AGAINST UNDERTAKINGS WHICH HAVE ALTERED THEIR DELIVERIES TO A SIGNIFICANT EXTENT COMPARED WITH TRADITIONAL DELIVERIES , IT CANNOT AT FIRST SIGHT BE EXCLUDED THAT ARTICLE 15 B MAY BE DIRECTED TOWARDS OBJECTIVES OTHER THAN THOSE PERMITTED BY ARTICLE 58 OF THE TREATY , INASMUCH AS IT CONDUCES TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES IN SOME STEEL PRODUCTS . 9 SIMPLY BY READING THE DECISION IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT FOR A PRODUCER OR DEALER TO IDENTIFY THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH HE COULD CONTINUE TO EXPORT TO OTHER MEMBER STATES . FOR EXAMPLE , THE TERM ' ' TRADITIONAL DELIVERIES ' ' IS NOT DEFINED IN THE DECISION ; NOR DOES IT EXPLAIN WHAT IS MEANT BY ' ' ALTERATION OF DELIVERIES TO A SIGNIFICANT EXTENT ' ' . 10 THE DECISION CONTAINS NO LIMIT OR CONDITION ON THE USE OF THE POWER TO REDUCE QUOTAS IF A SIGNIFICANT ALTERATION IN TRADITIONAL DELIVERIES IS ESTABLISHED . IN PARTICULAR , AN UNDERTAKING WHICH OBSERVES THE RULES ON PRICES , QUOTAS , COMPETITION AND STATE AID MAY FEAR SANCTIONS MERELY BECAUSE IT HAS INCREASED ITS DELIVERIES TO OTHER MEMBER STATES . 11 BECAUSE OF THE INFLUENCE WHICH IT IS LIKELY TO HAVE ON THE IMMEDIATE ACTIONS OF UNDERTAKINGS , THE SYSTEM SO ESTABLISHED IS SUCH THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF URGENCY WOULD NORMALLY BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN MET . 12 HOWEVER , DURING THE INTERLOCUTORY PROCEEDINGS THE COMMISSION HAS MADE A NUMBER OF STATEMENTS WITH REGARD TO THE WAY IN WHICH IT INTENDS TO APPLY THE PROVISION IN ISSUE . THE COURT HAS TAKEN NOTE OF THOSE STATEMENTS . 13 THE COMMISSION HAS UNDERTAKEN TO APPLY ARTICLE 15 B ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS : ( A ) FIRST , ARTICLE 15 B WILL NOT BE APPLIED SIMPLY BECAUSE AN ALTERATION IN TRADITIONAL DELIVERIES HAS BEEN OBSERVED ; IT WILL ONLY BE APPLIED WHERE THE CHANGE IN TRADITIONAL DELIVERIES MAY BE ASCRIBED TO THE ACTION OF UNDERTAKINGS ENGAGING IN PRACTICES WHICH ARE CONTRARY TO COMMUNITY LAW . ( B)SECONDLY , THE MERE FACT THAT THE UNDERTAKING CONCERNED IS IN RECEIPT OF AID AUTHORIZED BY THE COMMISSION MAY NOT GIVE RISE TO A QUOTA REDUCTION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 15 B . ( C)THIRDLY , IF THE COMMISSION ' S INQUIRY REVEALS INFRINGEMENTS OF OTHER PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW SUCH AS THOSE ON PRICES , QUOTAS , COMPETITION OR STATE AID , IT WILL FIRST OF ALL APPLY THE SANCTIONS PROVIDED FOR THOSE INFRINGEMENTS . 14 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES , PENDING A FULL EXAMINATION OF THE COMPATIBILITY OF ARTICLE 15 B WITH THE TREATY , IT MAY BE HELD THAT THOSE ASSURANCES REMOVE THE THREAT WITH WHICH THE UNDERTAKINGS WERE CONFRONTED AND WHICH COULD HAVE JUSTIFIED THE URGENT MEASURES REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT . ON THOSE GROUNDS , THE COURT , BY WAY OF INTERIM DECISION , HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS : 1 . NOTE IS TAKEN OF THE UNDERTAKINGS GIVEN BY THE COMMISSION ; 2. THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED ; 3. THE COSTS ARE RESERVED . © European Communities, 2001 All rights reserved BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1984/C4584R.html