Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) 24 October 1991

In Case T-2/89,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (First Chamber), composed of: J. L. Cruz Vilaça, President, R. Schintgen, D. Edward, H. Kirschner and K. Lenaerts, Judges, Advocate General: B. Vesterdorf, Registrar: H. Jung,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing held from 10 to 15 December 1990,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 10 July 1991,

gives the following

Judgment

Facts and background to the action

Procedure

Forms of order sought by the parties

Substance

The rights of the defence

1. Documents disclosed too late and new objections

2. Use before the Court of documents not mentioned in the Decision

3. Nondisclosure of the minutes of the hearings

4. Nondisclosure of the hearing officer's report

Proof of the infringement

1. The findings of fact

I — Relating to the period from 1980 to March 1982

(a) The contested decision

(b) Arguments of the parties

(c) Assessment by the Court

II — Relating to the period from March 1982 to November 1983

A — The system of regular meetings

(a) The contested decision

(b) Arguments of the parties

(c) Assessment by the Court

B — The price initiatives

(a) The contested decision

(b) Arguments of the parties

(c) Assessment by the Court

C — The measures designed to facilitate the implementation of the price initiatives

(a) The contested decision

(b) Arguments of the parties

(c) Assessment by the Court

D — Target tonnages and quotas

(a) The contested decision

(b) Arguments of the parties

(c) Assessment by the Court

2. The application of Article 85(1) of the EEC Treaty

A — Legal characterization

(a) The contested decision

(b) Arguments of the parties

(c) Assessment by the Court

B — The effect on trade between Member States

(a) The contested decision

(b) Arguments of the parties

(c) Assessment by the Court

C — Collective responsibility

(a) The contested decision

(b) Arguments of the parties

(c) Assessment by the Court

3. Conclusion

The statement of reasons

1. Insufficient reasoning

2. Contradictory reasoning

3. Incorrect reasoning

The fine

1. The duration of the infringement

2. The gravity of the infringement

A — The applicant's limited role

B — Lack of individualization in the criteria for determining the fines

C — The alleged failure to take proper account of the effects of the infringement

D — Insufficient reasoning

E — Contradictory reasoning

F — The principle of equal treatment

Costs

1 Language of the case: French.