Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) 10 March 1992

In Case T-10/89,

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 delivered 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 upon notification of the statement of objections

2. Insufficient access to the file

3. New objections

Proof of the infringement

1. The fmdings of fact

A. The floor-price agreement

(a) The contested decision

(b) Arguments of the parties

(c) Assessment by the Court

B. The system of regular meetings

(a) The contested decision

(b) Arguments of the parties

(c) Assessment by the Court

C. The price initiatives

(a) The contested decision

(b) Arguments of the parties

(c) Assessment by the Court

D. 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

E. Target tonnages and quotas

(a) The contested decision

(b) Arguments of the parties

(c) Assessment by the Court

F. Conclusion

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. Restrictive effect on competition

(a) The contested decision

(b) Arguments of the parties

(c) Assessment by the Court

3. Conclusion

The statement of reasons

The fine

1. The limitation period

2. Duration of the infringement

3. The gravity of the infringement

A. The applicant's limited role

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

C. Incorrect definition of the relevant market

D. Failure to take proper account of the adverse market conditions

E. The alleged failure to take proper account of the effects of the infringement

F. The exacerbation of the fine as a result of the application of national law

The reopening of the oral procedure

Costs

1 Language of die case: German.