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

In Case T-12/89,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (First Chamber), composed of: J. L. Cruz Vilaça, President of the Chamber, 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

The 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. Presumption of guilt based on the absence of marketing executives at the hearings

3. New objections

4. Nondisclosure of the minutes of the hearings

Proof of the infringement

1. The findings of fact

A. The EATP meeting of 22 November 1977

(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

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 partie

(c) Assessment by the Court

The statement of reasons

1. The adoption of a single decision

2. Insufficient reasoning

3. Contradictory reasoning

The fine

1. Duration of the infringement

2. The gravity of the infringement

A. The applicant's limited role

B. The Commission's new fining policy

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

D. Wrong definition of the relevant market

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

F. The alleged failure to take account of mitigating circumstances

Reopening of the oral procedure

Costs

1 Language of the case: French.