Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mancini

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. By application submitted on 11 March 1984 Sideradria SpA, an Italian undertaking engaged in the production of concrete reinforcing bars, which claims to be in particularly serious economic and financial straits, asks the Court to annul or to reduce a fine which in its view is not only unfair but also constitutes a threat to its survival and which was imposed on it by the Commission for exceeding the delivery quota for the third quarter of 1981.

2. On 10 August 1981, in accordance with Decision 1831/81 and on the basis of the figures given by Sideradria, the Commission notified the applicant of the quotas allocated to it for the third quarter of that year. The production quota totalled 9798 tonnes, including 4254 tonnes which could be sold. In verifying whether those quotas were being adhered to, however, the Commission established that, during the quarter in question, Sideradria's production had exceeded the limits specified, rising to 11989 tonnes of which 10489 tonnes had been marketed within the Community.

3. In its application to the Court, Sideradria is asking primarily for a declaration that the decision of 26 January 1984 is void and, in the alternative, for a reduction of the fine. In support of its first claim, the applicant relies on three grounds: (a) manifest unfairness of the contested decision and illogicality of the statement of reasons on which it is based; (b) failure to take decisive facts into account; and (c) breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectation.

4. I now turn to the alternative claim for a reduction of the fine. Sideradria relies on two arguments in support of that claim. It maintains in the first place that, in preparing its defence against the charges initially brought by the Commission, Sideradria's management realized that it had made a mistake. In the reference year, 1979, part of the production which it believed had been exported to markets outside the Community had in fact been sold in Italy. The Commission was immediately informed of that mistake but took no account of it in imposing the fine. Yet Sideradria maintains that a mistake was undoubtedly made, as is clear from its own tax returns. The relevant documents, which were produced before the Court as illustrations, show that the production sold in 1979 was to a large extent subject to VAT, that is, a tax to which transactions carried out on markets outside the Community are not liable under Italian law.

5. On the basis of the foregoing considerations, I suggest that the Court should decide the application submitted on 11 March 1984 by Sideradria-Industria Metallurgica SpA, having its registered office in Adria (Rovigo) Italy, by

1 Translated from the Italian.