Opinion of Advocate General Darmon delivered on 15 December 1993

1 Original language: French.

2 Decision establishing a system of steel production quotas for undertakings in the iron and steel industry (OJ 1980 L 291, p. 1).

3 Decision on the extension of the system of monitoring and production quotas for certain products of undertakings in the steel industry (OJ 1985 L 340, p. 5). See in particular Article 18(2)

4 Decision extending the system of monitoring and production quotas for certain products of undertakings in the steel industry (OJ 1988 L 25, p. 1). See in particular Article 18(2)-

5 Which attributes to the Commission the power to impose fines in the event that production quotas are exceeded.

6 Case T-26/90 [1992] ECR II-1789.

7 Appeal, page 45 of the French translation.

8 Paragraph 103 of the contested judgment.

9 218/87, 223/87, 72/88 and 92/88 [1989] ECR 1711.

10 Judgment in Case 76/83 [1984] ECR 859, delivered in the context of the system of quotas established by Commission Decision No 1831/81/ECSC of 24 June 1981 establishing for undertakings in the iron and steel industry a monitoring system and a new system of production quotas in respect of certain products (OJ 1981 L 180, p. 1).

11 Paragraph 11, my emphasis.

12 Paragraph 21 of the judgment in Joined Cases 81/85 and 119/85 Usinar v Commission [1986] ECR 1777.

13 Page 13 of the French translation of the appeal.

14 Paragraph 71 of the contested judgment.

15 Paragraph 72 of the contested judgment.

16 Sec in that respect the judgment in Case C-l81/90 Consorgan v Commùsion [1992] ECR I-3557.

17 Paragraph 83 of the contested judgment.

18 See page 17 of the French translation of the appeal.

19 Reply, page 9 of the French translation.

20 See paragraph 1 of the recital and Article 18(2), as well as paragraph 97 of the judgment of the Court of First Instance.

21 The ratio between production quotas and delivery quotas.

22 Appeal, see page 29 of the French translation.

23 Paragraph 26, cited in the judgment of the Court of First Instance at paragraph 53.

24 Paragraph 53 of the contested judgment.

25 Joined Cases 33/86, 44/86, 110/86, 226/86 and 285/86 Peine-Salzgitter and Others v Commission [1988] ECR 4309.

26 Paragraph 1 of the operative part, my emphasis. See also paragraph 28 of the grounds.

27 Paragraph 55 of the contested judgment.

28 Paragraph 57 of the contested judgment, my emphasis.

29 Paragraph 56 of the contested judgment.

30 Paragraph 58 of the contested judgment.

31 Paragraph 59 of the contested judgment.

32 Paragraph 62 of the contested judgment.

33 See paragraph 46 of the contested judgment.

34 See on this point paragraph 18 of the judgment of 14 June 1989 in Hoogovens, supra, footnote 8.

35 Paragraph 65 of the contested judgment.

36 Appeal, pages 34 and 35 of the French translation.

37 Ibid., page 36.

38 Ibid., page 37.

39 Ibid., page 38.

40 Ibid., page 39.

41 Article 1 of the decision.

42 See above, paragraph 43, and paragraph 65, penultimate sentence, of the contested judgment, as well as the third recital of the decision of 21 March 1990.

43 Case 30/59 [1961] ECR 1.

44 Page 17. The case-law on Article 176 of the EEC Treaty — which is the counterpart of Article 34 of the ECSC Treaty — is consistent in this matter. See, for example, the judgment in Case 141/84 De Compte v Parliament [1985] ECR 1951, paragraph 22, and the judgment in Hoogovens, cited above, paragraph 21.

45 Paragraph 65 of the contested judgment.

46 Article 5(1) of Decision No 194/88/ECSC.

47 Judgment in Case 85/76 Hoffmann-La Roche v Commission [1979] ECR 461, paragraph 9, (especially paragraph 14). See also the judgment in Case 322/81 Michelin v Commission [1983] ECR 3461.

48 Case 234/84 Belgium v Commission [1986] ECR 2263, paragraph 27.

49 Paragraph 108 of the contested judgment.

50 Paragraph 109 of the contested decision.

51 See on that point paragraph 48 of the judgment in Case C-142/87 Belgium v Commission [1990] ECR I-959.

52 Paragraph 110 of the contested judgment.

53 Paragraph 109 of the contested judgment.

54 Case C-283/90 P Vidrányi v Commission [1990] ECR I-4339

55 Paragraph 29

56 Paragraph 114 of the contested judgment.

57 Paragraph 115 of the contested judgment.

58 See the third indent of paragraph 44 of the French translation of the Appeal.

59 See supra paragraph 28.