Court of Justice 19-10-1983 ECLI:EU:C:1983:283

Facts and conclusions of the parties

By application lodged at the Court Registry on 29 April 1983 SpA Fernere San Carlo brought an action based on the Court's unlimited jurisdiction under the second paragraph of Article 36 of the ECSC Treaty challenging the decision dated 24 March 1983 whereby the Commission fined it 87 540 ECU for exceeding by 152 tonnes the production quota allocated to it for the third quarter of 1981, and for exceeding by 846 tonnes the production quota which was deliverable within the common market assigned to it for the fourth quarter of 1981 pursuant to Decision No 1831/81/ECSC.

By a decision dated 1 June 1983 the Commission withdrew the contested decision of 24 March 1983 for the following reasons: with regard to the alleged over-production of 846 tonnes the Commission was informed, after the contested decision had been made, of the existence of stocks on 30 June 1981 amounting to 1 028 tonnes. The Commission took the view that the stocks held on 30 June 1981 were not subject to the rules established by Decision No 1831/81/ECSC and therefore concluded that the applicant company had not exceeded that part of the production quota which it was allowed to deliver within the common market during the fourth quarter of 1981. As far as the alleged over-production of 152 tonnes was concerned, the Commission found that since the excess in question was below 500 tonnes and it was the first offence of that kind committed by the undertaking, the applicant's circumstances were those in which the Commission always refrained from imposing a fine.

According to the latest versions of their respective claims, San Carlo, for its part, requests the Court to record that the fine imposed on 24 March 1983 was revoked by the Commission and to order the Commission to pay costs of 200 ECU by way of reimbursement of expenses incurred by its Counsel and 1 000 ECU by way of fees for the latter; the Commission, for its part, contends that the Court should record that the Commission's decision of 1 June 1983 repealed with “retroactive effect” its previous decision of 24 March 1983, and should order each party to bear its own costs in the present proceedings.

As regards costs the applicant company relies, first, on the fact that the competent officers of the Commission were aware of its stock levels on 30 June 1981 prior to the issuance of the contested decision, and secondly on the fact that the Commission adopted its decision fining the applicant without giving it an opportunity to submit its comments as required by Article 36 of the ECSC Treaty, thereby failing to observe the principle of respecting the rights of the defence.

In rebuttal the Commission claims that it was not until 5 April 1983 — that is, after the contested decision — that San Carlo sent it a telex notifying it of the existence of a stock of finished products falling outside the quota rules established by Decision No 1831/81/ECSC, and that in accordance with Article 36 of the ECSC Treaty the applicant company had been heard on two occasions and had therefore been given an adequate opportunity to present a defence.

The Commission adds that it was the “dilatory and inconsistent” conduct of the applicant company which caused the present action and that in any case San Carlo had committed an offence, however minor, since there had been a slight infringement of the quota limits which had escaped a penalty only on the strength of an administrative policy.

However, the Commission states that at the present stage of the proceedings it has not incurred any refundable costs and it therefore takes the view that each party should be ordered to bear its own costs.

Costs

Under the terms of Article 69 (5) of the Rules of Procedure, where a case does not proceed to judgment the costs shall be in the discretion of the Court.

The Court takes the view that the circumstances of the dispute and the course of the procedure disclose adequate grounds for ordering the parties to bear their own costs without its being necessary to consider the merits of the arguments adduced in support of the action.