EU-domstolen
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) 10 March 1992
In Case T-14/89,
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. Lack of impartiality in the preparation of the Decision
2. Alteration of the original objections
3. Allegation that the Decision was based on material extraneous to the proceedings
Proof of the infringement
1. The findings 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
C. Effect on trade between Member States
(a) The contested decision
(b) Arguments of the parties
(c) Assessment by the Court
D. Justifying factors
(1) The critical economic situation
(2) The application of Article 85(3) of the EEC Treaty
(3) The beneficial effects of the measures taken by the producers
(4) The principle of solidarity and burden-sharing
(5) Unfair competition
(6) The analogy with lawful raw materials cartels
(7) The Italian legal, political and social context
3. Conclusion
Freedom of association
The statement of reasons
The fine
1. The limitation period
2. Duration of the infringement
3. The gravity of the infringement
A. The Commission's new policy on fines
B. The statement of the reasons for the fine
C. The intrinsic gravity of the infringement
D. The alleged failure to take proper account of the effects of the infringement
E. The claim that insufficient account was taken of the situation of economic crisis
F. The failure to take into account mitigating circumstances
G. Conclusion
The reopening of the oral procedure
Costs
1 Language of the case: Italian.