Opinion of Mr Advocate General Darmon

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. On 14 February 1985, Cockerill-Sambre filed an application at the Court Registry under the second paragraph of Article 36 of the ECSC Treaty for a declaration that an individual decision addressed to it, Decision C (84) 1958/1 adopted by the Commission of the European Communities on 19 December 1984, is void. The decision imposed a fine of 620570 ECU on the applicant pursuant to Article 58 of the ECSC Treaty for exceeding the production quotas fixed for the first and second quarters of 1983 by Commission Decision 1696/82/ECSC of 30 June 1982.

2. In support of its objection, it contends that:

3. In order to justify the latter claim, the applicant stated that although its registered office is still in Seraing, the offices of the President and the Director-General as well as the operational departments were transferred to Brussels in June 1984. All of the company's usual correspondents, including the Commission, were informed of that change by a circular of 29 May 1984.

4. In the reply which it was permitted to submit by reason of the new facts raised by the applicant, the Commission maintained its objection. In its view, the notice was lawful and valid, and in fact is based on a rule of common sense to the effect that notification of a Commission decison addressed to a legal person should be made at that person's registered office, particularly in the case of a decision imposing pecuniary sanctions.

5. The question raised in this case is whether the Commission is required to give notice of its decisions at the place indicated by the person to whom they are addressed.

6. In my opinion, therefore, the application brought on 14 February 1985 must be declared inadmissible.

1 Translated from the French.