EU-domstolen
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) 17 December 1991
In Case T-8/89,
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (First Chamber), composed of: J. L. Cruz Vilaça, President, R. Schintgen, D. A. O. 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. Nondisclosure of documents with the statement of objections
2. The alleged insufficiency of the evidence adduced by the Commission
Proof of the infringement
1. The findings of fact
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. 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. Restrictive effect on competition
(a) The contested decision
(b) Arguments of the parties
(c) Assessment by the Court
C. Effect on trade between Member States
(a) The contested decision
(b) Arguments of the parties
(c) Assessment by the Court
3. Conclusion
The statement of reasons
The fine
1. Duration of the infringement
2. The gravity of the infringement
A. The alleged single infringement and 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. The claim that insufficient account was taken of the situation of economic crisis
E. Breach of the principles of fairness, proportionality and equal treatment
F. The absence of any previous infringement
Costs
1 Language of the case: Dutch.
2 Unofficial translation.