# Arrêt de la Cour

1..
: Appeals – Pleas in law – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissible – Review by the Court of Justice of assessment of the evidence – Excluded unless the sense of the evidence has been distorted

2..
: Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea alleging distortion of evidence – Plea reproducing verbatim the arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Inadmissible

3..
: Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Liability – Criterion known as the economic continuity of the undertaking – Liability of a newly-formed company for an infringement by another company which has not ceased to exist – Admissible in view of the links between the capital of the two companies

4..
: Competition – Administrative procedure – Observance of the rights of the defence – Request for information addressed to an undertaking – Right to refuse to provide an answer which might involve an admission of infringement – Request addressed to an association of undertakings – Right to refuse to testify against its members – None

5..
: Competition – Administrative procedure – Statement of objections – Provisional nature – Dropping of objections which prove to be unfounded – Obligation for the Commission to inform those concerned by means of a supplementary statement of objections – None

6..
: Competition – Administrative procedure – Inapplicability of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights – Observance by the Commission of procedural guarantees – Adversarial principle – Scope – Limits – Right of the undertaking to question the authors of the incriminating documents – None

7..
: Competition – Administrative procedure – Observance of the rights of the defence – Access to the file – Scope – Refusal to communicate a document – Consequences – Need at the level of the burden of proof borne by the undertaking concerned to draw a distinction between incriminating documents
  and exculpatory documents

8..
: Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Participation by an undertaking in an anti-competitive initiative – Tacit approval by an undertaking without publicly distancing itself or reporting to the competent authorities sufficient to
  render it liable

9..
: Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity and duration of the infringement – Infringement by a number of undertakings – Relative gravity of the participation of each of them

10..
: Competition – Administrative procedure – Breach of the rights of the defence – Lack of proper access to the file – Access ensured during the judicial procedure – Remedy – None

11..
: Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea challenging the assessment by the Court of First Instance of the existence of a breach of the rights of the defence during
  a procedure in application of the competition rules – Admissible

12..
: Competition – Administrative procedure – Observance of the rights of the defence – Access to the file – Determination by the Commission alone of the documents of use to the defence – Not permissible – Exclusion from the case-file of the documents with no objective connection to the allegations in the statement of objections – Permissible

13..
: Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Prohibition – Infringements – Agreements and concerted practices capable of being approached as constituting a single infringement – Imputation of liability to an undertaking owing to its participation in the infringement considered as a whole notwithstanding
  its limited role – Permissible

14..
: Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission decision finding an infringement adopted after the decision of a national competition authority concerning the
  same undertaking – No identity between the infringements giving rise to the two decisions – Breach of the principle ne bis in idem – None

15..
: Appeal – Pleas in law – Insufficient reasoning – Recourse by the Court of First Instance to implicit reasoning – Permissible – Conditions

1.
:

2.
:

3.
:

4.
:

5.
:

6.
:

7.
:

8.
:

9.
:

10.
:

11.
:

12.
:

13.
:

14.
:

15.
:

«(Appeal – Competition – Cement market – Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) – Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance – Rights of the defence – Access to the file – Single and continuous infringement – Liability for an infringement – Evidence of participation in the general agreement and measures of implementation – Fine – Determination of the amount)»

| | Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 11 February 2003 in Case C-204/00 P |
| --- | --- |

| | Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 11 February 2003 in Case C-205/00 P |
| --- | --- |

| | Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 11 February 2003 in Case C-211/00 P |
| --- | --- |

| | Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 11 February 2003 in Case C-213/00 P |
| --- | --- |

| | Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 11 February 2003 in Case C-217/00 P |
| --- | --- |

| | Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 11 February 2003 in Case C-219/00 P |
| --- | --- |

| | Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 7 January 2004 |
| --- | --- |

Summary of the Judgment

1..
  Appeals – Pleas in law – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissible – Review by the Court of Justice of assessment of the evidence – Excluded unless the sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

2..
  Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea alleging distortion of evidence – Plea reproducing verbatim the arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Inadmissible(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))

3..
  Competition – Community rules – Infringements – Liability – Criterion known as the economic continuity of the undertaking – Liability of a newly-formed company for an infringement by another company which has not ceased to exist – Admissible in view of the links between the capital of the two companies(EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) (now Art. 81(1) EC))

4..
  Competition – Administrative procedure – Observance of the rights of the defence – Request for information addressed to an undertaking – Right to refuse to provide an answer which might involve an admission of infringement – Request addressed to an association of undertakings – Right to refuse to testify against its members – None(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 11)

5..
  Competition – Administrative procedure – Statement of objections – Provisional nature – Dropping of objections which prove to be unfounded – Obligation for the Commission to inform those concerned by means of a supplementary statement of objections – None(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 19; Commission Regulation No 99/63, Art. 2)

6..
  Competition – Administrative procedure – Inapplicability of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights – Observance by the Commission of procedural guarantees – Adversarial principle – Scope – Limits – Right of the undertaking to question the authors of the incriminating documents – None

7..
  Competition – Administrative procedure – Observance of the rights of the defence – Access to the file – Scope – Refusal to communicate a document – Consequences – Need at the level of the burden of proof borne by the undertaking concerned to draw a distinction between incriminating documents
  and exculpatory documents

8..
  Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Participation by an undertaking in an anti-competitive initiative – Tacit approval by an undertaking without publicly distancing itself or reporting to the competent authorities sufficient to
  render it liable
  (EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) (now Art. 81(1) EC))

9..
  Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity and duration of the infringement – Infringement by a number of undertakings – Relative gravity of the participation of each of them(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2))

10..
  Competition – Administrative procedure – Breach of the rights of the defence – Lack of proper access to the file – Access ensured during the judicial procedure – Remedy – None

11..
  Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea challenging the assessment by the Court of First Instance of the existence of a breach of the rights of the defence during
  a procedure in application of the competition rules – Admissible
  (Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

12..
  Competition – Administrative procedure – Observance of the rights of the defence – Access to the file – Determination by the Commission alone of the documents of use to the defence – Not permissible – Exclusion from the case-file of the documents with no objective connection to the allegations in the statement of objections – Permissible

13..
  Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Prohibition – Infringements – Agreements and concerted practices capable of being approached as constituting a single infringement – Imputation of liability to an undertaking owing to its participation in the infringement considered as a whole notwithstanding
  its limited role – Permissible
  (EC Treaty, Art. 85(1) (now Art. 81(1) EC))

14..
  Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission decision finding an infringement adopted after the decision of a national competition authority concerning the
  same undertaking – No identity between the infringements giving rise to the two decisions – Breach of the principle ne bis in idem – None

15..
  Appeal – Pleas in law – Insufficient reasoning – Recourse by the Court of First Instance to implicit reasoning – Permissible – Conditions(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 7 January 2004 (1)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 7 January 2004 (1)

((Appeal – Competition – Cement market – Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) – Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance – Rights of the defence – Access to the file – Single and continuous infringement – Liability for an infringement – Evidence of participation in the general agreement and measures of implementation – Fine – Determination of the amount))

appellants,

gives the following

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

─
:

On those grounds,

Jann

Edward

La Pergola

R. Grass

V. Skouris

Registrar

President

---

1 –

  Languages of the case: Danish,English,Frenchand Italian.

1 –
: Languages of the case: Danish,English,Frenchand Italian.