EU-domstolen
JUDGMENT OF 16. 12. 1975 — JOINED CASES 40 TO 48, 50, 54 TO 56, 111, 113 AND 114/73 SUIKER UNIE AND OTHERS v COMMISSION
Hänvisat till av
Rättsfall
In Joined Cases
THE COURT composed of: R. Lecourt, President, R. Monaco and H. Kutscher, Presidents of Chamber, A. M. Donner, J. Mertens de Wilmars, P. Pescatore, M. Sørensen, A. J. Mackenzie Stuart and A. O'Keeffe, Judges, Advocate-General: H. Mayras Registrar: A. Van Houtte
gives the following
JUDGMENT
Facts
I — Facts and procedure
1. General Community regulations
2. Specific Community and national regulations relating to the Italian sugar market
A — Content of the Community regulations
B — Content of the Italian regulations
3. History of the present applications
A — Facts leading to the adoption of the decision
B — The decision
(a) Summary of the operative part of the decision
(b) Summary of the grounds of the Decision
1. Complaint that Eridania, Cavarzere, Industria degli zuccheri, Volano, Emiliana, SADAM, Sucres et Denrées, Béghin, Say, Générale sucrière, RT and SZAG have engaged in a concerted practice having as its object the protection of the Italian market (Article 85)
2. Complaint that SU, CSM, RT and Pfeifer & Langen have engaged in a concerted practice having as its object the protection of the Netherlands market (Article 85)
3. Complaint that Pfeifer & Langen and RT have engaged in a concerted practice having as its object the protection of the market of the Western part of the Federal Republic of Germany (Article 85)
4. Complaint that SZAG and Béghin have engaged in a concerted practice having as its object the protection of the market in the Southern part of the Federal Republic of Germany (Article 85)
5. Complaint that RT brought economic pressure to bear on Belgian exporters (Article 86)
6. Complaint of economic pressure brought to bear by SU and CSM on Netherlands importers (Article 86)
7. Complaint that SZV prevented its agents from reselling sugar from other sources and tied its customers by granting loyalty rebates (Article 86)
8. Complaint that Pfeifer & Langen entered into agreements with its agents restricting their opportunities for importing and exporting within the Community (Article 85)
9. Complaint that RT, Say, Béghin, Générale sucrière and Sucres et Denrées engaged in a concerted practice in connexion with the invitations to tender for export refunds (Article 85)
10. The exceptions provided for by Regulation No 26 are not applicable.
11. The principle in accordance with which the fines have been imposed and the amount thereof
4. Procedure
II — Conclusions of the parties
III — Submissions and arguments of the parties developed during the written procedure
General observations
1. The complaint of a concerted practice having as its object the protection of the Italian Market
A — Formal and procedural submissions
(a) Eridania, Industria degli zuccheri and SZAG: Illegality of the policy adopted by the Commission for informing the public
(1) Summary of the applications
(2) Summary of the Defences
(3) Summary of the replies
(b) Industria delgi zuccheri and SZAG: Unlawful method of notifying objections
(1) Summary of applications
(2) Summary of the Defences
(3) Summary of the replies
(4) Summary of the rejoinder in Case 54/73
(c) Cavarzere and Industria degli zuccheri: Failure to comply with the procedure for conducting inquiries into economic sectors; corresponding failure to consult the Governments concerned and the Management Committee for Sugar
(1) Summary of the applications
(2) Summary of the Defences
(3) Summary of the Reply of Industria degli zuccheri
(d) Eridania, Cavarzere, Industria degli zuccheri and SZAG: Infringement of the procedural rules of Regulation No 26 and of the principle of legal certainty
(1) Summary of applications
(2) Summary of the statements of defence
(3) Summary of the replies
(4) Summary of the rejoinder
(e) Eridania, Industria degli zuccheri, SADAM and SZAG: The unduly short time-limits for the submission of observations
(1) Summary of applications
(2) Summary of the statements of defence
(3) Summary of the reply of Industria degli zuccheri
(f) Eridania and SZAG: Infringement of Article 4 of Regulation No 99/63
(1) Summary of the applications
(2) Summary of the statements of defence
(g) Eridania, Industria degli zuccheri, SADAM, Sucres et Denrées, Say, Générale sucrière and SZAG: Infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty
(1) Summary of the applications
(2) Summary of the statements of defence
(3) Summary of SZAG's reply
(4) Summary of the rejoinder in Case No 54/73
(h) RT: Lack of clarity in the operative part of the decision
(1) Summary of the application
(2) Summary of the statement of defence
B — Submissions on the substance of the case
(a) Générale sucrière, Say, Béghin, RT, Sucres et Denrées, SZAG, Eridania, Cavarzere, Industria degli zuccheri, Volano, Emiliana and SADAM: Infringement of Article 85 of the Treaty
(1) Summary of the applications
(aa) On the Italian regulations relating to the sugar market (meaning, application, effect legality)
(aaa) The meaning and application of the Italian regulations
(bbb) The effect of the Italian measures on competition and on the conduct of undertakings
Summary of the observations submitted by non-Italian undertakings (suppliers-exporters).
Summary of the observations submitted by Italian undertakings (producers-importers)
(ccc) The legality of the Italian measures
(bb) On the relevance and evaluation of the facts upon which the complaints against the applicants are based
(2) Summary of the Statements of Defence
to 1. (aa) (aaa)
to 1. (aa) (bbb)
to 1. (aa) (ccc)
to 1. (bb)
General considerations
Reply to Générale sucrière
Reply to Say
Reply to Béghin
Reply to RT
Reply to Sucres et Denrées
Reply to SZAG
Reply to Eridania
Reply to Cavarzere
Reply to Industria degli zuccheri
Reply to Emiliana
Générale sucrière
Say
Béghin
RT
Sucres et Denrées
SZAG
Cavarzere
Volano and Emiliana
SADAM
(3) Summary of replies
to 1. (aa) (aaa)
to 1. (aa) (bbb)
to 1. (bb)
(4) Summary of the rejoinders
to 1. (aa) (aaa)
to 1. (aa) (bbb)
General observations on the submissions of the applicants who are not Italian
Individual replies to certain non-Italian applicants
General observations on the submissions of the Italian applicants
Individual replies to the Italian applicants
to 1. (aa) (ccc)
to 1., (bb)
General considerations on the submissions of all the applicants
Individual replies to certain applicants or groups of applicants
Reply to Générale sucrière
Reply to Say
Reply to Béghin
Reply to RT
Reply to Sucres et Denrées
Reply to SZAG
General reply to the Italian applicants
Reply to Eridania
Reply to Cavarzere
Reply to Industria degli zuccheri
Reply to Emiliana
Reply to Volano
Reply to SADAM
(5) The argument between the intervener and the applicants
to 1., (aa) (bbb)
to 1., (aa) (ccc)
to 1. (bb)
(b) Générale sucrière, Say, Béghin, RT, Sucres et Denrées, Eridania, Industria degli zuccheri et Cavarzere: Infringement of Article 38 et seq. of the Treaty, of Regulation No 26, of Regulation No 1009/67 and its implementing regulations
(1) Summary of the applications
(aa) The first exception provided for in Article 2 of Regulation No 26 (Article 85 of the Treaty does not apply to agreements etc. which are an integral part of the national organization of the markets)
(bb) The second exception provided for in Article 2 of Regulation No 26 (Article 85 of the Treaty does not apply to agreements etc. which are necessary for attainment of the objectives set out in Article 39 of the Treaty)
(2) Summary of the statements of defence
to 1. (aa)
to 1. (bb)
(3) Summary of replies
Preliminary considerations
to 1. (aa)
to 1. (bb)
(4) Summary of the rejoinders
to (3) Preliminary considerations
to 1. (aa)
to 1. (bb)
(5) The argument between the intervener and the parties to the main action
2. The complaint of a concerted action engaged in by SU, CSM, RT and Pfeifer & Langen for the protection of the Netherlands market
A — Preliminary submission: before 2 January 1971 an undertaking within the meaning of Articles 85 and 86
(a) Summary of the application
(b) Summary of the statement of defence
(c) Summary of the reply
(d) Summary of the rejoinder
B — Formal and procedural submissions
(a) SU, CSM and Pfeifer & Langen: premature publication a breach of the principle that everyone has the right to a fair trial
(1) Summary of the applicants
(2) Summary of the statements of defence
(3) Summary of the replies
(4) Summary of rejoinders
(b) SU, CSM and Pfeifer & Langen: unduly short time limits for the submission of observations
(1) Summary of the applications
(2) Summary of the statements of defence
(3) Summary of replies
(4) Summary of the rejoinder 40/73
(c) Pfeifer & Langen: infringement of the right to be heard on the matters at issue
(1) Summary of the application
(2) Summary of statement of defence
(d) Pfeifer & Langen: infringement of Article 4 of Regulation No 99/63
(1) Summary of the application
(2) Summary of the statement of defense
(3) Summary of the reply
(4) Summary of the rejoinder
(e) SU: failure to take into account the facts put forward by the applicant
(1) Summary of the application
(2) Summary of the statement of defence and the rejoinder
(f) SU: infringement of Article 4 of Regulation No 99/63
(1) Summary of the application
(2) Summary of the statement of defence
(3) Summary of the reply
(4) Summary of the rejoinder
(g) Pfeifer & Langen: infringement of the established principles for the taking of evidence
(1) Summary of the application
(2) Summary of the statement of defence
(3) Summary of the reply
(4) Summary of the rejoinder
(h) SU and CSM: adoption of a single decision in four languages
(1) Summary of the applications
(2) Summary of the statements of defence
(3) Summary of the applications
(4) Summary of rejoinders
(i) CSM, SU: absence or inadequacy of the statement of their reasons upon which the decision is based
(1) Summary of applications
(2) Summary of the statements of defence
(3) Summary of the replies
(4) Summary of the rejoinders
(j) SU, CSM and RT lack of clarity in the operative part of the decision
(1) Summary of the applications
(2) Summary of the statements of defence
(3) Summary of the replies
(4) Summary of the rejoinders
C — Submissions on the substance of the case
(a) SU: Infringement of Article 85 of the Treaty
(1) Summary of the application
(2) Summary of the statement of defence
(3) Summary of the reply
(4) Summary of the rejoinder
(b) CSM: Infringement of Article 85 of the Treaty
(1) Summary of the application
(2) Summary of the statement of defence
(3) Summary of the reply
(4) Summary of the rejoinder
(c) RT: Infringement of Article 85 of the Treaty
(1) Summary of the application
(2) Summary of the statement of defence
(3) Summary of the reply
(4) Summary of the rejoinder
(d) Pfeifer & Langen: Infringement of Article 85 of the Treaty
(1) Summary of the application
(2) Summary of the statement of defence
(3) Summary of the reply
(4) Summary of the rejoinder
(e) CSM and RT: Infringement of Regulation No 26
(1) Summary of CSM's application
(2) Summary of the later pleadings
3. Complaint that Pfeifer & Langen and RT engaged in a concerted practice having as its object the protection of the market of the Western part of the Federal Republic of Germany
A — Pfeifer & Langen and RT: Formal and procedural submissions
B — Submissions on the substance of the case
(a) Pfeifer & Langen: Infringement of Article 85 of the Treaty
(1) Summary of the application
(2) Summary of the statement of defence
(3) Summary of the reply
(4) Summary of the rejoinder
(b) RT: Infringement of Article 85 of the Treaty
(1) Summary of the application
(2) Summary of the statement of defence
(3) Summary of the reply
(4) Summary of the rejoinder
(c) RT: Infringement of Regulation No 26
4. Complaint that SZAG and Béghin have engaged a concerted practice having as its object the protection of the market of the southern part of the Federal Repulic of Germany
A — Formal and procedural submissions
(a) SZAG: Illegality of the policy adopted by the Commission for informing the public; defects in the communication; infringement of the rules of procedure of Regulation No 26: unduly short time-limits for the submission of observations
(b) Béghin and SZAG: Infringement of Article 19 of Regulation No 17 and of Articles 1, 2 and 4 of Regulation No 99/63
(1) Summary of applications
(2) Summary of the statements of defence
(3) Summary of replies
(4) Summary of the rejoinders
(c) SZAG: Infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty
(1) Summary of the application
(2) Summary of the statement of defence
(3) Summary of the reply
(4) Summary of the rejoinder
B — Submissions on the substance of the case
(a) Béghin: Infringement of Article 85 Treaty
(1) Summary of the application
(2) Summary of the statement of defence
(3) Summary of the reply
(4) Summary of the rejoinder
(b) SZAG: Infringement of Article 85 of the Treaty
(1) Summary of the application
(2) Sum of the statement of defence
to (aa)
to (bb)
to (cc)
to (dd)
(3) Summary of the reply
(4) Summary of the rejoinder
5. The complaint that RT brought economic pressure to bear on Belgian exporters
(a) Summary of the application
(b) Summary of the statement of defence
(c) Summary of the reply
(d) Summary of the rejoinder
6. Complaint that SU and CSM brought economic pressure to bear on Netherlands importers
A — Preliminary submission: SU had no legal existence during the period to which the present complaint refers
B — Formal and procedural submissions
(a) SU and CSM: Illegality of the policy adopted by the Commission for informing the public; unduly short time-limits for the submission of observations; adoption of a single decision
(b) SU: Absence or inadequacy of the statement of the reasons upon which the decision is based
(1) Summary of the application
(2) Summary of the statement of defence
(3) Summary of the reply
(4) Summary of the rejoinder
(c) CSM: Absence or inadequacy of the statement of the reasons upon which the decision is based
(1) Summary of the application
(2) Summary of the statement of defence
(3) Summary of the reply
(d) SU: Lack of clarity in the operative part of the decision
(1) Summary of the application
(2) Summary of the statement of defence
(3) Summary of the reply
C — Submissions on the substance of the case
(a) SU: Infringement of Article 86 of the Treaty
(1) Summary of the application
(2) Summary of the statement of defence
(3) Summary of the reply
(4) Summary of the rejoinder
(b) CSM: Infringement of Article 86 of the Treaty
(1) Summary of the application
(2) Summary of the statement of defence
(3) Summary of the reply
(4) Summary of the rejoinder
7. Complaint that SZV prevented its agents from reselling sugar from other sources and tied its customers by the grant of loyalty rebates
A — Formal and procedural submissions
(a) SZV: Illegality of the policy adopted by the Commission for informing the public; illegality of the communication; unduly short time limits for submission of observations
(b) SZV: Infringement of Article 4 of Regulation No 99/63
(1) Summary of the application
(2) Summary of the statement of defence
(c) SZV: Infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty
B — Submissions on the substance of the case SZV, Single submission: Infringement of Article 86 of the Treaty.
(1) Summary of the application
(2) Summary of statement of defence
(3) Summary of the reply
(4) Summary of the rejoinder
8. Complaint that Pfeifer & Langen entered into agreements with its agents restricting their opportunities for importing and exporting within the Community
A — Formal and procedural submissions
(a) Pfeifer & Langen: Premature publication a breach of the principle that everyone has the right to a fair trial; Unduly short time-limits for the submission of observations
(b) Pfeifer & Langen: No opportunity given to the applicant to present its case on the facts which the Commission considered before taking any action
(1) Summary of the application
(2) Summary of the Statement of Defence
B — Submissions on the substance of the case
(1) Summary of the application
(2) Summary of the statement of defence
(3) Summary of the reply
(4) Summary of the rejoinder
9. The complaint that RT, Say, Béghin, Générale sucrière et Sucres et Denrées engaged in a concerted practice in connexion with the invitations to tender for export refunds
A — A single formal and procedural submission
(a) Summary of the applications
(b) Summary of the statements of defence
(c) Summary of the replies
B — Submissions on the substance of the case
(a) RT, Say, Béghin, Générale sucrière et Sucres et Denrées: Infringement of Article 85 of the Treaty
(1) Summary of the application
(2) Summary of the statements of defence
Reply to Sucres et Denrées
Reply to Sucres et Denrées
Reply to Say, Béghin and Sucres et Denreés
Reply to Say and Béghin
Reply to Say and Béghin
Reply to Générale sucrière, RT and Sucres et Denrées
(3) Summary of the replies
(4) Summary of the rejoinders
(b) RT, Say and Générale sucrière: Infringement of Regulation No 26
10. The fines
A — Formal and procedural submissions
(a) Industria degli zuccheri, Sucres et Denrées, Béghin, Say, Générale sucrière, SU and Pfeifer & Langen: Infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty
(1) Summary of the applications
(2) Summary of the statements of defence
to (1) (aa)
to (1) (bb) to (ff)
to (1) (gg)
to (1) (hh)
to (1) (ii)
(3) Summary of replies
to (1) (aa)
to (1) (bb) to (ff)
(4) Summary of the rejoinders
to (1) (aa)
to (1) (bb) to (ff)
(b) SZAG and SZV: Infringement of Articles 15 (2) and 18 of Regulation No 17 and of the rules governing the juridisdiction of the Court
(1) Summary of the applications
2. Summary of the statements of defence
B — Submissions on the substance of the case
(a) Eridania, Industria degli zuccheri, Sucres et Denrées, Béghin, Say, Générale sucrière, SZAG, SU, CSM, Pfeifer & Langen and SZV: Infringement of Article 15 of Regulation No 17
(1) Summary of the applications
(2) Summary of the statements of defence
to (1) (aa)
to (1) (bb)
to (1) (cc) (aaa)
to (1) (cc) (bbb)
to (1) (cc) (ccc)
to (1) (dd)
(3) Summary of the replies
to (1) (aa)
to (1) (bb)
to (1) (cc)
to (1) (dd)
(4) Summary of the rejoinders
to (1) (aa)
to (1) (bb)
to (1) (cc)
(b) All the applicants: Unfatrness of the fines having regard to the principle in accordance with which they have been imposed or to the amount thereof
(1) Summary of the applications
(2) Summary of the statements of defence
to (1) (aa) (aaa)
to (1) (aa) (bbb)
to (1) (aa) (ccc)
to (1) (bb) (aaa)
to (1) (bb) (bbb)
to (1) (bb) (ccc)
to (1) (bb) (ddd)
to (1) (bb) (eee)
to (1) (cc) (aaa)
to (1) (cc) (bbb)
to (1) (cc) (ccc)
to (1) (cc) (ddd)
to (1) (dd) (aaa)
to (1) (dd) (bbb)
to (1) (ee)
to (1) (ff)
to (1) (gg)
(3) Summary of the replies
to (1) (aa) (aaa)
to (1) (aa) (bbb)
to (1) (bb) (aaa)
to (1) (bb) (ccc)
to (1) (cc) (aaa)
to (1) (cc) (ccc)
to (1) (ff)
to (1) (gg)
(4) Summary of rejoinders
to (1) in general
to (1) (aa) (aaa)
to (1) (aa) (bbb)
to (1) (bb) (aaa)
to (1) (bb) (ccc)
to (1) (cc) (bbb)
to (1) (gg)
IV — Summary of the parties' replies to certain questions raised by the Court, of the observations of the opposite parties on these replies and of the hearing of the witnesses
1. The first complaint (concerted practices for the protection of the Italian market; cf. III 1. above)
2. The second complaint (concerted practices for the protection of the Netherlands market; cf. III 2 above)
3. The third complaint (concerted practices for the protection of the market of the western part of the Federal Republic of Germany; cf. III 3. above)
to (1) to (3)
to (1) to (3)
to (1) to (3)
to (4)
to (5)
to (1) to (3)
to (4)
to (1)
to (2)
to (3)
4. The fifth complaint (economic pressure brought to bear on Belgian exporters; cf. III 5 above)
to (1)
1968/69 marketing year
1969/70 marketing year
to (2)
5. The sixth complaint (economic pressure brought to bear on Netherlands importers; cf. III 6 above)
6. The eighth complaint (agreements entered into by Pfeifer & Langen with its agents restricting their opportunities for importing and exporting within the Community; cf. III 8 above)
A — Pfeifer & Langen:
B — The Commission:
to A (a)
Clause 1:
Clause 2
Clause 3
Point 6
to A (b)
to A (c) (1) to (6)
to B
7. The ninth complaint (concerted practices at the invitations to tender for refunds on exports to third countries; cf. III 9 above)
to (1) and (2)
to 3
Law
General
I
II
III
Chapter 1: Complaint of a concerted practice having as its object the protection of the Italian market
I — Summary of the relevant statements of the decision and of the main arguments of the parties
II — Examination of the submission
Chapter 2 The complaint of a concerted practice having as its object the protection of the Netherlands market
Section 1: Preliminary submission: the Cooperative Vereniging Suiker Unie (UA (SU) was not a legal entity during part of the period to which this complaint refers
Section 2: Procedural and formal submissions
I — Submissions concerning the administrative procedure
1. Premature publication a breach of the principle that everyone has the right to a fair trial
2. Unduly short time-limits for submission of observations
3. Failure by the Commission to have taken into account certain facts put forward by the applicant
4. Infringement of Article 4 of Regulation No 99/63
II — Submissions relating to the drafting and notification of the decision
1. Infringement of the right to defend by the adoption of a single decision; infringement of the first paragraph of Article 191 (2) of the Treaty and of Article 3 of Regulation 1(1)
2. Infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty
3. Lack of clarity in the operative part of the decision
Section 3: Submissions on the substance of the case
I — Infringement of Article 85 of the Treaty
1. Summary of the relevant statement in the decision
2. Examination of the submission
A — The relations between RT, on the one hand, and SU and CSM, on the other hand
(a) The evidence
(aa) The evidence relating to the actual conduct of the applicants
1. Channelling of Belgian exports to specific consignees or destinations
2. Refusal to supply
3. The obligation imposed by RT on Belgian dealers and by SU and CSM on Netherlands dealers to adopt the policy described above
(bb) The evidence relating to the question whether the conduct referred to above was concerted
(b) Evaluation of this evidence
(aa) Its evidential value
(bb) The existence of the alleged concerted practices
(cc) The question whether the concerted practices were capable of affecting trade between Member States and whether they had as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market
(dd) The question whether the concerted practices affected trade between Member States and interfered appreciably with competition
B — The relations between Pfeifer & Langen, on the one hand, and SU and CSM on the other hand
II — Infringement of Regulation No 26 of the Council
Chapter 3: The complaint of a concerted practice having as its object the protection of the market of the western part of the Federal Republic of Germany
Section 1: Procedural and formal submissions; submission on the substance of the case that Regulation No 26 of the Council has been infringed
I — Submissions already dealt with in the second chapter
II — Infringement of the right to defend
III — Infringement of the accepted principles for the taking of evidence
Section 2: Submission on the substance of the case that Article 85 of the Treaty has been infringed
I — Summary of the relevant statements of the decision
II — Examination of the submission
1. White sugar
A — The evidence
(a) The evidence of the actual conduct of the applicants
(aa) Channelling of Belgian exports to specific consignees or particular destinations
(bb) The obligation imposed on agents only to undertake free exports of sugar with the consent of Pfeifer & Langen or by applying a price aligned on the German company's price
(cc) Refusal to sell
(b) The evidence relating to the question whether the conduct referred to above was concerted
B — The evaluation of the evidence
2. Raw sugar
3. The question whether the concerted practices relating to white sugar affected trade between Member States and interfered with competition
Chapter 4 The complaint of a concerted practice having as its object the protection of the market of the southern part of the Federal Republic of Germany
I — The actual conduct of the applicants
II — The question whether the beforementioned conduct was concerted
1. The evidence
2. The evaluation of this evidence
A — Béghin's deliveries
B — Sucre-Union's deliveries
Chapter 5 The complaint that RT brought economic pressure to bear on Belgian exporters
I — Summary of the relevant statements of the decision
II — Examination of the submission
1. The question whether the Belgo-Luxembourg market is a substantial part of the common market.
2. The question whether RT occupies a dominant position on the Belgo-Luxembourg sugar market
3. The question whether there was an abuse of the dominant position
A — The evidence
B — The evaluation of the evidence
Chapter 6 The complaint that SU and CSM brought economic pressure to bear on Netherlands importers
Chapter 7 Complaint that SZV prevented its agents from reselling sugar from other sources and tied its customers by the grant of loyalty rebates
Section 1: Procedural and formal submissions
I — Submissions already dealt with in Chapter 2
II — Submissions based on defects in the notification of objections
III — Submission that Article 4 of Regulation No 99/63 has been infringed
IV — Submission based on defects in the taking of evidence by the Commission and on the inadequacy of the statement of the reasons upon which the decision is based
Section 2: Substantive submission based on infringement of Article 86 of the Treaty
I — The question whether the southern part of Germany is a substantial part of the common market
II — The question whether SZV occupies a dominant position on the sugar market of the southern part of Germany
III — The existence of an abuse
1. The obligation imposed on agents
A — The Commission's view
B — The evaluation of the Commission's view
2. The loyalty rebate
A — The Commission's view
B — The evaluation of the facts
Chapter 8 The complaint directed against Pfeifer & Langen; that it entered into agreements with its agents which restrict their opportunities for importing and exporting within the Community
I — Summary of the relevant statements in the decision and of certain additional information supplied by the applicant
II — The substance (of the complaint)
Chapter 9 The complaint of a concerted action in connexion with the invitations to tender for refunds on exports to third countries
Section 1: Formal submission based on infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty
Section 2: Substantive submissions
I — Infringement of Article 85 of the Treaty
1. The truth of the facts alleged
2. The question whether these practices fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 85 of the Treaty
A — The question whether these practices might affect trade between Member States and whether their object or effect was to impede competition within the common market
B — The question whether the concerted practices had an appreciable effect on intra-Community trade and competition within the common market
II — Infringement of Regulation No 26
Chapter 10 The requirement that the applicants put an end immediately to the infringements found to have been committed (Article 2 of the decision). The fines (Article 3)
I — Article 2 of the decision
II — The fines imposed by Article 3 of the decision
Costs
(a) The costs in the main action
(b) The costs of the intervention
(c) The costs incurred in connexion with the examination of the witnesses
1 With regard to RT's exports of white sugar, it gives two sets of figures; one showing the amount of sugar covered by the export licences which it was granted (25499 metric tons) and the other showing the amount of sugar covered by the export licences granted to Belgian dealer-exporters Export and Hottlet (20374 metric tons); these two figures added together amount to 48873 metric tons. The Commission states that its figure of 56650 metric tons showing the amounts awarded to RT included; 21150 metric tons awarded to Export from March 1970 onwards and it was from this month that Export had to follow RT at the invitations to tender (cf. Annex I 74 to 78 to the statements of defence; Annex II 17. 18 to the statement of defence in Case 47/73); 3000 metric tons awarded to the French company Erstein which is a subsidiary of RT.
3 The contents and the list of abbreviations do not form part of the judgment.
4 When undertakings are applicants the number of the case is shown in brackets. The undertakings which received a copy of the decision but did not lodge an application with the Court, because they were not fined, are marked with an asterisk.