Opinion of Mr Advocate General

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. The action brought by the Wirtschaftsvereinigung Eisen- und Stahlindustrie [Iron and Steel Industry Association] (hereinafter referred to as the Wirtschaftsvereinigung) involves the reconciliation of two conflicting requirements :

2. Since 1980 the steel market has been under the supervision of the Commission and subject to a system of production quotas. As stated in its preamble, general Decision No 2177/83/ECSC reflects the persistence of the manifest crisis. As a result, the operation of the economic laws of the market are to a very large extent controlled and restricted by Commission decisions of a general or individual character which either unilaterally fix quotas for steel production in the Community or adjust them in the light of special circumstances peculiar to certain products or undertakings. In that respect, the Commission is empowered to grant supplementary quotas, in particular to encourage undertakings to undertake rapid restructuring (eleventh recital in the preamble to Decision No 2177/83/ECSC and Article 14b of that decision).

3. Consequently, by a letter dated 10 November 1983, the Wirtschaftsvereinigung, relying upon the provisions of Article 35 of the ECSC Treaty, asked the Commission to publish in the Official Jotiniai the following data for each undertaking subject to the quota system:

4. The applicant has brought an action before the Court against the Commission's reply, which it views as a decision of refusal of an individual character. The action, which is based principally on the second paragraph of Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty and in the alternative on paragraph 3 of Article 35 of that treaty, seeks to have the Commission's decision declared void inasmuch as the Commission refuses

5. Before considering the arguments submitted by the Wirtschaftsvereinigung in support of its application to have the decision declared void, the question of admissiblity must be considered, this having been contested by the Commission.

6. As far as the substance of the case is concerned it should first be observed that the scope of the dispute has evolved considerably in the course of the proceedings.

7. The argument that the data requested are not useful prompts the following comments.

8. According to the second paragraph of Article 47 of the ECSC Treaty the only information which the Commission is required not to disclose is

9. I cannot fully agree with that assessment.

10. In view of all the foregoing considerations, it is my opinion that:

1 Translated from the French.