Order — ECLI:EU:T:2002:13
Date: 2002-01-24
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Third Chamber, Extended Composition
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices;Concerted practices
Concepts: Costs
Procedure: Application as to costs
Origin: France

Summary The facts § 1 Procedure § 23 Forms of order sought § 30 The claim for annulment of the decision of 23 September 1993 inasmuch as it terminatedthe international part of the proceeding initiated against 12 German undertakings andsix Spanish undertakings § 77 The claim for annulment of the contested decision § 85 I - The pleas alleging various infringements of essential procedural requirementsduring the administrative procedure § 85 The first plea: infringement of the rights of the defence and of the principle ofequal treatment in that the whole of the SO and the documents relatingthereto were not accessible during the administrative procedure § 87 A - Preliminary observations § 88 B - The notification of part of the SO § 104 1. The inseparability of the SO and the applicants' right of access to thewhole of it § 105 2. The existence of an inseparable link between the national andinternational agreements and concerted practices and theapplicants' right of access to the whole of the SO § 110 3. Infringement of the principle of equal treatment § 122 C - Inaccessibility of some parts of the SO and of some documents in theinvestigation file which might have contained exculpatory evidence § 124 1. Organisation of access to the file during the administrativeprocedure § 127 1.1 Irregularities in the organisation of access to the file in regard toaccessible documents § 128 1.2 Organisation of access to the file was irregular because theapplicants did not have access to certain documents § 140 2. The various measures of organisation of procedure ordered by theCourt § 158 2.1 Preliminary observations § 158 2.2 The various measures ordered § 163 2.3. The conditions under which the Commission was to perform themeasures of organisation of procedure § 173 2.3.1. The measure of 19 January to 2 February 1996 § 174 2.3.2. The measure of 2 October 1996 § 176 2.3.3. The measure of 18 and 19 June 1997 § 185 2.3.4. Interim findings § 210 2.3.5. Special circumstances which impaired the effectiveness of themeasures of 2 October 1996 and 18 and 19 June 1997 § 212 3. Analytical framework for assessing an argument alleginginfringement of the rights of the defence because of theinaccessibility of allegedly exculpatory evidence during theadministrative procedure § 237 4. Application of the principles to the present case § 249 5. General arguments relating to infringement of the rights of defenceduring the administrative procedure § 267 6. Conclusions § 280 D - The use in the contested decision of incriminating documents notdisclosed to the applicants during the administrative procedure or notidentified in the SO § 281 1. Preliminary observations § 281 2. Documents neither cited nor mentioned in the contested decision § 286 3. Documents mentioned in the contested decision to describe a fact orconduct, but not used to make a finding of an infringement § 288 4. Documents supporting the finding of an infringement in thecontested decision but not relating to infringements attributed tothe applicants relying on those documents § 304 5. Documents used in the contested decision in the context of aninfringement attributed to the applicant who is relying on them § 318 6. Conclusions § 379 E - The failure to send to the applicants documents which were not in theinvestigation file § 380 1. Preliminary observations § 380 2. Replies to the SO by other addressees § 384 2.1 Use of replies to the SO as incriminating evidence § 386 2.2 Exculpatory evidence which might have been contained in thereplies to the SO § 404 3. Records of the hearings relating to the national agreements andconcerted practices § 408 4. The Commission's file on the notification of the Belgian-DutchBasing point system § 411 5. The Commission's file on State aid granted by the HellenicRepublic and on the inter-governmental agreement betweenGreece and the United Kingdom § 416 6. Internal notes of the Commission not included in the investigationfile § 418 7. The Commission's statements in defence § 430 8. Conclusions § 435 The second, third and fourth pleas: infringements of the rights of the defence, of theprinciple of equal treatment and of Article 190 of the Treaty as a result of theCommission's abandonment of the national objections and, as against someundertakings, of the international objections § 436 A - The dropping of the national objections § 438 B - The abandonment of the international objections as against someundertakings § 461 The fifth plea: procedural irregularity by the Commission in dropping someinternational objections as against Irish Cement § 472 The sixth plea: infringement of the rights of the defence resulting from theincomplete and imprecise nature of the SO § 475 A - Preliminary observations § 475 B - The allegedly incomplete nature of the SO § 477 1. The alleged failure by the Commission to state in the SO that itintended to fine trade associations § 478 2. The method of dealing with the CBS agreement § 489 3. The alleged failure to explain the Commission's territorialjurisdiction § 494 4. The alleged failure to analyse the market and to precisely definethe relevant markets § 497 C - The alleged lack of precision in the SO as to the participation of certainapplicants in various objections raised in the SO § 504 1. Participation of the applicants concerned in the infringementconstituted by the Cembureau agreement and the duration of thatinfringement § 506 1.1. Participation in the infringement referred to in Article 1 of thecontested decision § 510 1.1.1. Addressees of the SO which are members of Cembureau § 511 1.1.2. Addressees which are not direct members of Cembureau orregarded in the SO as not being direct members § 516 1.1.2.1. Addressees of the SO, not direct members of Cembureau,which are alleged to have participated in bilateral or multilateralagreements and concerted practices § 518 1.1.2.2. Addressees of the SO, not direct members of Cembureau,which are alleged to have participated in the activities of theECEC § 528 1.1.2.3. Addressees of the SO, not direct members of Cembureau,which are alleged to have participated in the activities of theEPC § 537 1.1.3. Interim conclusions § 542 1.2. Membership of a national association that was a direct member ofCembureau as a criterion for attributing responsibility for theinfringement referred to in Article 1 of the contested decision § 544 1.3. Duration of participation in the infringement referred to inArticle 1 of the contested decision § 569 1.4. Conclusions § 581 2. Precision of the SO as regards applicants' participation in theexchanges of information on prices and the duration of thatinfringement § 582 3. Precision of the SO as regards applicants' participation in thebilateral and multilateral agreements referred to in Article 3 of thecontested decision § 585 4. Precision of the SO as regards applicants' participation in thesetting-up of the ETF and in the measures adopted in theframework thereof, referred to in Article 4 of the contesteddecision, and as regards the duration of those infringements § 594 5. Precision of the SO as regards the applicants' participation in theconcerted practices in the framework of the export committeesreferred to in Articles 5 and 6 of the contested decision, and asregards the duration of those infringements § 615 The seventh plea: infringements of the rights of the defence and of Article 3 ofRegulation No 1 resulting from the failure to translate certain documents § 627 The eighth plea: infringement of the rights of the defence resulting frommistranslation and misquotation of certain documents § 647 The ninth plea: infringements of the rights of the defence and of Article 11(1)of Regulation No 99/63 as a result of the inadequate period for replying tothe SO § 652 The 10th plea: infringements of the rights of the defence, of Article 19(1) ofRegulation No 17 and of Article 7(1), Article 8(1) and Article 9 ofRegulation No 99/63 resulting from the defective organisation of thehearings § 657 A - Preliminary remarks § 657 B - The first part: infringement of the rights of the defence and ofArticle 19(1) of Regulation No 17 and Article 7(1) of Regulation No99/63 § 659 1. The Hearing Officer's programme for the hearings § 662 2. Alleged irregularities during the hearings concerning theinternational objections § 664 3. Alleged irregularities at the hearings concerning the nationalobjections § 675 4. Other irregularities during the hearings § 682 C - Second part: infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 99/63 § 691 D - Third part: infringement of Article 9 of Regulation No 99/63 § 696 The 11th plea: breach of the principle of ex officio investigation § 702 The 12th plea: the rights of the defence were infringed by the excessive length ofthe administrative procedure § 706 The 13th plea: infringement of Article 6 of the ECHR § 712 The 14th plea: breach of the principle of presumption of innocence § 725 The 15th plea: infringement of the right of the parties not to give evidenceagainst themselves § 731 The 16th plea: infringement of Article 10 of Regulation No 17 in that there wasno proper consultation of the Advisory Committee § 740 The 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th pleas: infringement of the principle of subsidiarity,the principle of sound administration, the principle of legal certainty and theprinciple of legitimate expectations during the administrative procedure § 751 The 21st plea: infringement of the principle of collegiate responsibility when thecontested decision was adopted § 758 The 22nd plea: improper authentication and notification of the contesteddecision § 762 II The plea alleging misuse of powers § 776 III - Pleas alleging infringements of Articles 85(1) and 190 of the Treaty, theprinciple of equal treatment and the rights of the defence in that the Commissionfound in Article 1 of the contested decision that there had been an agreementcontrary to Article 85(1) of the Treaty and that the various applicants concernedhad participated in it § 782 Preliminary observations § 782 The infringement referred to in Article 1 of the contested decision § 785 Definition of the relevant market § 825 A - The relevant product market § 827 B - The relevant geographical market § 832 C - Infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty § 836 Consistency between the SO and the contested decision § 852 The existence of the Cembureau agreement § 861 A - Infringement of Article 85(1) of the Treaty § 862 1. Documents referred to in recital 18 of the contested decision § 872 1.1. Internal Blue Circle memoranda § 875 1.2. Statement by Mr Kalogeropoulos at the Heracles Board Meetingheld on 25 June 1986 § 902 1.3. Admission by Cembureau § 914 1.4. Conclusions § 920 2. Conclusion of the Cembureau agreement at the Head Delegatesmeeting held on 14 January 1983 and confirmation of thatagreement at the Head Delegates meetings held on 19 March and7 November 1984 § 921 2.1. The competence of the Head Delegates to conclude the Cembureauagreement § 923 2.2. Conclusion of the Cembureau agreement at the Head Delegatesmeeting held on 14 January 1983 § 929 2.1 Letter convening the Head Delegates meeting on 14 January 1983 § 930 2.2.2. Amendments to the agenda for the Head Delegates meeting heldon 14 January 1983. § 942 2.2.3. Content of the documents relating to the conduct of the HeadDelegates meeting on 14 January 1983 § 955 2.2.4. Conclusions regarding the Head Delegates meeting on 14 January1983 § 1003 2.3. Confirmation of the Cembureau agreement at the meeting of HeadDelegates on 19 March 1984 § 1004 2.4. Confirmation of the Cembureau agreement at the meeting of HeadDelegates on 7 November 1984 § 1028 2.5. Failure to take other Head Delegates meetings into consideration § 1047 2.6. General arguments relating to the evidential value of the documentsreferred to in recitals 18 and 19 of the contested decision § 1050 2.7. Documents subsequent to the Head Delegates meetings showingthat the Cembureau agreement was not concluded at the meetingheld on 14 January 1983 or confirmed at the meetings held on 19March and 7 November 1984 § 1061 2.8. Characterisation as an agreement within the meaning of Article85(1) of the Treaty § 1071 2.9. Object and nature of the Cembureau agreement § 1079 3. The Cembureau agreement as an infringement of the Treaty:restriction of competition and effects on trade between MemberStates § 1085 4. Conclusions § 1095 B - Infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty § 1096 C - Breach of the rights of the defence when access was given to the file § 1110 1. Incriminating evidence § 1111 2. Exculpatory evidence § 1113 2.1. Arguments raised by several applicants § 1114 2.2. Case T-25/95 CBR v Commission § 1133 2.3. Case T-26/95 Cembureau v Commission § 1143 2.4. Case T-30/95 FIC v Commission § 1152 2.5. Cases T-31/95 ENCI v Commission and T-32/95 VNC vCommission § 1167 2.6. Case T-35/95 Dyckerhoff v Commission § 1171 2.7. Case T-36/95 SFIC v Commission § 1181 2.8. Case T-37/95 Vicat v Commission § 1190 2.9. Case T-39/95 Ciments Français v Commission § 1196 2.10. Case T-42/95 Heidelberger v Commission § 1198 2.11. Case T-43/95 Lafarge v Commission § 1204 2.12. Case T-44/95 Aalborg v Commission § 1209 2.13. Case T-48/95 BDZ v Commission § 1218 2.14. Case T-50/95 Unicem v Commission § 1220 2.15. Case T-51/95 Buzzi v Commission § 1226 2.16. Case T-57/95 Heracles v Commission § 1228 2.17. Cases T-53/95 Rugby v Commission, T-56/95 Castle v Commission,T-70/95 Aker v Commission and T-71/95 EUROC v Commission § 1238 2.18. Case T-60/95 Irish Cement v Commission § 1243 2.19. Cases T-61/95 Cimpor v Commission, T-62/95 SECIL vCommission and T-63/95 ATIC v Commission § 1252 2.20. Case T-65/95 Italcementi v Commission § 1256 2.21. Case T-68/95 Holderbank v Commission § 1268 2.22. Case T-69/95 Hornos Ibéricos v Commission § 1272 2.23. Case T-87/95 Cementir v Commission § 1277 2.24. Case T-88/95 Blue Circle v Commission § 1285 3. Conclusions § 1295 The applicants' participation in the Cembureau agreement § 1296 A - Preliminary observations § 1296 B - Membership of a national association that is a member of Cembureauas a criterion for attributing liability for the infringement referred to inArticle 1 of the contested decision § 1307 C - Power of Head Delegates and associations of undertakings to concludethe Cembureau agreement § 1312 D - The finding that both undertakings and associations were responsible forthe same infringement § 1322 E - Participation of Cembureau and its direct members in the infringementreferred to in Article 1 of the contested decision § 1331 1. Proof of participation of Cembureau and its direct members in theinfringement referred to in Article 1 of the contested decision § 1332 1.1. Succession of certain direct members of Cembureau § 1334 1.2. Applicants which participated in one or more meetings of the HeadDelegates § 1342 1.2.1. Participation in the meetings of the Head Delegates at which theCembureau agreement was concluded and then confirmed § 1342 1.2.2. The parties' claims to have distanced themselves and othercircumstances relied on in order to contest their participation inthe Cembureau agreement § 1354 1.2.3. Alleged inadmissibility of certain documents against directmembers of Cembureau § 1396 1.2.4. Conclusions regarding the participation of Cembureau and itsdirect members, other than Unicem, in the infringement referredto in Article 1 of the contested decision § 1400 1.3. Situation of Unicem, a direct member of Cembureau which did notparticipate in any of the Head Delegates meetings § 1404 2. Infringement of the principle of equal treatment § 1418 3. Infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty § 1423 4. Infringement of the rights of the defence when access was granted tothe file § 1429 4.1. Incriminating evidence § 1429 4.2. Exculpatory evidence § 1432 4.2.1. Case T-26/95 Cembureau v Commission § 1433 4.2.2. Case T-87/95 Cementir v Commission § 1435 F - Participation of Unicem, of the indirect members of Cembureau and ofBuzzi in the infringement referred to in Article 1 of the contesteddecision § 1439 G - Conclusions § 1449 IV - Pleas alleging infringements of Articles 85(1) and 190 of the Treaty, of theprinciple of equal treatment and of the rights of the defence inasmuch as theCommission finds that there were two infringements of Article 85(1) of theTreaty concerning exchanges of price information at Cembureau level and that the various parties participated in them (contested decision, Article 2(1) and(2)) § 1450 Preliminary observations § 1450 Agreements on the exchange of price information at Cembureau meetings(Article 2(1) of the contested decision) § 1458 A - Consistency between the SO and the contested decision § 1460 B - The existence of agreements on exchanges of price information duringthe Cembureau Head Delegates and Executive Committee meetings § 1467 1. Cembureau Head Delegates meetings. § 1470 2. Cembureau Executive Committee meetings. § 1478 C - The unlawful nature of the exchanges of price information which tookplace at the Head Delegates meetings on 14 January 1983 and on 19March 1984 § 1501 D - The participation of the applicants in the infringement referred to inArticle 2(1) of the contested decision § 1538 Concerted practices involving the periodic exchanges of price information(Article 2(2)(a) and (b) of the contested decision) § 1576 A - Consistency between the SO and the contested decision § 1579 B - Identification of the information referred to in Article 2(2)(b) of thecontested decision § 1607 C - The unlawful nature of the periodic exchanges of price information § 1620 D - The participation of the applicants in the infringement referred to inArticle 2(2) of the contested decision § 1683 E - The duration of the infringement referred to in Article 2(2) of thecontested decision § 1738 Access to the file § 1756 Conclusions § 1817 V - The pleas alleging infringements of Article 85(1) of the Treaty and of the rightsof the defence in that the Commission finds the existence of three Franco-Italianconcerted practices which infringed Article 85(1) of the Treaty and that theapplicants in question participated in them (Article 3(1)(a), (b) and (c) of thecontested decision) § 1819 Introduction § 1819 Concerted practice between Lafarge and Buzzi found in Article 3(1)(a) of thecontested decision § 1829 A - Introduction § 1829 B - Correspondence between the Statement of Objections (SO) and thecontested decision § 1831 C - The existence of an anti-competitive concerted practice between Lafargeand Buzzi with regard to the sharing of the south of France market § 1836 D - Duration of the infringement § 1869 Concerted practice between Ciments Français and Buzzi found in Article 3(1)(b)of the contested decision § 1877 A - Introduction § 1877 B - Whether there was an anti-competitive concerted practice betweenCiments Français and Buzzi § 1878 C - Duration of the infringement § 1917 Concerted practice between Vicat and Buzzi found in Article 3(1)(c) of thecontested decision § 1922 A - Introduction § 1922 B - Existence of an anti-competitive concerted practice between Vicat andBuzzi § 1924 C - The duration of the infringement § 1960 Access to the file § 1971 A - Case T-37/95 Vicat v Commission § 1973 B - Case T-39/95 Ciments Français v Commission § 1992 C - Case T-51/95 Buzzi v Commission § 1999 Conclusions § 2034 VI - Pleas alleging infringements of Article 85(1) of the Treaty, the principle ofequal treatment and rights of the defence in that the Commission found thatthere was a Hispano-Portuguese agreement which infringed Article 85(1)of theTreaty and that various applicants participated in it (contested decision, Article3(2)) § 2036 Introduction § 2036 Infringement referred to in Article 3(2) of the contested decision § 2041 A - The Commission's analysis § 2041 B - Agreement between Oficemen, Cimpor and SECIL on the monitoringof cement movements between Spain and Portugal and onnon-transhipment to their respective home markets § 2053 1. Conclusion of the agreement § 2054 2. Implementation of the agreement § 2067 2.1 Meetings held between Oficemen, Cimpor and SECIL § 2070 2.2 Cimpor's refusal to sell § 2083 2.3. Conclusions § 2092 3. Specific circumstances ruling out the existence of an agreement § 2093 4. SECIL's special position § 2107 5. Conclusion § 2111 C - Unlawful nature of the applicants' conduct § 2112 D - Duration of the infringement § 2124 Breach of the principle of equal treatment § 2133 Infringement of the rights of the defence when access to the file was granted § 2136 A - Incriminating documents § 2136 B - Exculpatory documents § 2137 1. Case T-59/95 Oficemen v Commission § 2140 2. Cases T-61/95 Cimpor v Commission, and T-62/95 SECIL vCommission § 2142 Conclusion § 2165 VII - Pleas alleging infringements of Articles 85(1) and 190 of the Treaty, theprinciple of equal treatment and the rights of the defence in that the Commissionfinds that there was a Franco-German agreement and concerted practice contraryto Article 85(1) of the Treaty and that various applicants participated therein(contested decision, Article 3(3)(a)) § 2166 Preliminary observations § 2166 Agreement to share the Saarland market § 2172 Concerted practices between various French and German producers andassociations between 1982 and 1984 § 2226 A - Talks between SFIC and BDZ § 2236 B - Pressure exerted on Cedest by SFIC and the other French producersconcerned § 2252 C - Concerted action between Cedest, Dyckerhoff and Heidelberger § 2282 D - Concerted action between Lafarge and Dyckerhoff § 2295 E - Concerted action by Dyckerhoff and Ciments Français § 2316 General regulation of cement supplies between France and Germany § 2331 A - Conclusion of an agreement in 1984 § 2336 B - Pursuit of the agreement after 1986 § 2390 Duration of the participation of certain parties in the infringement referred toin Article 3(3)(a) § 2421 Access to the file § 2444 Conclusion § 2469 VIII - Pleas alleging infringements of Article 85(1) of the Treaty and of the rightsof the defence in that the Commission finds the existence of a concerted practicebetween SFIC and BDZ contrary to Article 85(1) of the Treaty (contesteddecision, Article 3(3)(b)) § 2471 Concerted practice between SFIC and BDZ § 2471 Access to the file § 2493 IX - Pleas alleging infringement of Articles 85(1) and 190 of the Treaty, of theprinciple of equal treatment, of the rights of the defence, and abuse of processand misuse of powers in that the Commission finds that there were agreementsand concerted practices within the framework of the ETF contrary to Article85(1) of the Treaty and that the various applicants participated in them(contested decision, Article 4(1), (2), (3)(a) and (b) and (4)(a) to (h)) § 2504 Preliminary observations § 2504 The agreement relating to the setting-up of the ETF (contested decision, Article4(1)) § 2513 A - Consistency between the SO and the contested decision § 2518 B - Unlawful nature of the agreement setting up the ETF § 2530 C - Participation, in the agreement setting up the ETF, of the applicantsnamed in Article 4(1) of the contested decision § 2592 1. Preliminary observations § 2592 2. CBR § 2596 3. Cembureau § 2607 4. Dyckerhoff § 2614 5. SFIC § 2621 6. Ciments Français § 2626 7. Heidelberger § 2633 8. Lafarge § 2648 9. Aalborg § 2651 10. BDZ § 2661 11. Unicem § 2674 12. Asland § 2684 13. Uniland § 2692 14. Oficemen § 2705 15. Irish Cement § 2726 16. Italcementi § 2745 17. Aker and EUROC § 2755 18. Cementir § 2767 D - Duration of the infringement found in Article 4(1) of the contesteddecision § 2783 E - Access to the file § 2816 1. Preliminary observations § 2816 2. Case T-26/95 Cembureau v Commission § 2818 3. Case T-35/95 Dyckerhoff v Commission § 2822 4. Case T-36/95 SFIC v Commission § 2851 5. Case T-35/95 Ciments Français v Commission § 2858 6. Case T-42/95 Heidelberger v Commission § 2867 7. Case T-43/95 Lafarge v Commission § 2870 8. Case T-44/95 Aalborg v Commission § 2888 9. Case T-48/95 BDZ v Commission § 2899 10. Case T-50/95 Unicem v Commission § 2902 11. Case T-55/95 Asland v Commission § 2911 12. Case T-58/95 Uniland v Commission and Case T-59/95 Oficemen vCommission § 2917 13. Case T-60/95 Irish Cement v Commission § 2928 14. Case T-65/95 Italcementi v Commission § 2938 15. Case T-68/95 Holderbank v Commission § 2949 16. Case T-70/95 Aker v Commission and Case T-71/95 EUROC vCommission § 2958 17. Case T-88/95 Blue Circle v Commission § 2962 Agreement on the setting-up of the Joint Trading Company, Interciment (Article4(2) of the contested decision) § 2968 A - Introduction § 2968 B - The unlawful nature of the setting-up of Interciment § 2973 C - The participation in the agreement setting up Interciment of theapplicants referred to in Article 4(2) of the contested decision § 2997 1. Preliminary observations § 2997 2. CBR, Dyckerhoff, Lafarge, Italcementi, Aker and EUROC § 2999 3. SFIC, BDZ and Oficemen § 3022 4. Ciments Français § 3033 5. Heidelberger § 3039 6. Unicem § 3047 7. Asland § 3057 8. Uniland § 3066 9. Cementir § 3076 D - The duration of the infringement found in Article 4(2) of the contesteddecision § 3081 E - Access to the file § 3105 Measures to defend the Italian market (contested decision, Article 4(3)) § 3133 A - Concerted practices designed to withdraw Calcestruzzi from the Greekproducers, and from Titan in particular (contested decision, Article4(3)(a)). § 3135 1. Existence of concerted practices § 3138 2. The applicants' participation in the concerted practices § 3190 2.1. CBR, Dyckerhoff, Aalborg, Uniland and Irish Cement § 3193 2.2. Ciments Français § 3208 2.3. Heidelberger § 3216 2.4. Lafarge § 3224 2.5. BDZ and Oficemen § 3234 2.6. Unicem § 3245 2.7. Asland § 3254 2.8. Italcementi § 3264 2.9. Holderbank § 3271 2.10. Aker and EUROC § 3276 2.11. Cementir § 3283 2.12. Blue Circle § 3291 3. The duration of the infringement § 3301 4. Access to the file § 3311 B - Agreement concerning the contracts and agreements signed in April1987 with Calcestruzzi (contested decision, Article 4(3)(b)) § 3343 1. Existence of the infringement § 3345 2. Access to the file § 3387 Measures intended to deflect the Greek production surplus and to curb importsof cement from Greece into the Member States (contested decision,Article 4(4)) § 3397 A - Concerted practice referred to in Article 4(4)(a) of the contesteddecision § 3402 B - Agreements and concerted practice referred to in Article 4(4)(b) to (h)of the contested decision § 3437 1. Agreement between Blue Circle and Titan referred to inArticle 4(4)(b) of the contested decision § 3451 2. Agreement between Holderbank and Titan referred to inArticle 4(4)(c) of the contested decision § 3515 3. Agreement between Holderbank and Heracles referred to inArticle 4(4)(d) of the contested decision § 3547 4. Agreement between Lafarge and Titan referred to in Article 4(4)(e)of the contested decision § 3570 5. Agreement between Lafarge and Heracles referred to inArticle 4(4)(f) of the contested decision § 3601 6. Concerted practice between CBR, Heracles and Titan referred to inArticle 4(4)(g) of the contested decision § 3619 7. Agreement between Aker, EUROC and Titan referred to inArticle 4(4)(h) of the contested decision § 3648 Characterisation, as a single and continuous agreement, of the agreements andconcerted practices referred to in Article 4 of the contested decision § 3680 A - Consistency between the SO and the contested decision § 3689 B - The single and continuous nature of the infringement referred to inArticle 4 of the contested decision § 3694 C - Participation in the single agreement relating to the ETF § 3719 1. CBR § 3720 2. Cembureau § 3727 3. Ciments Français § 3733 4. Unicem § 3740 5. Uniland § 3746 6. Italcementi § 3753 7. Cementir § 3758 D - Infringement of the principle of equal treatment § 3763 Conclusions § 3769 X - The pleas of infringements of Articles 85(1) and 190 of the Treaty and of therights of the defence in that the Commission finds that there were concertedpractices within the framework of the ECEC contrary to Article 85(1) of theTreaty and that the various applicants concerned participated in them (Article5 of the contested decision) § 3771 Preliminary observations § 3771 Contested decision § 3773 The unlawful nature of the activities of the ECEC referred to in Article 5 of thecontested decision § 3783 A - The ECEC's members' direct or indirect membership of Cembureau § 3795 B - Links between the ECEC and the EPC § 3803 C - ECEC's activities not confined to the overseas export markets § 3822 Conclusions § 3849 XI - Pleas of infringements of Articles 85(1) and 190 of the Treaty and of the rightsof the defence in that the Commission finds that there was a concerted practicewithin the framework of the EPC contrary to Article 85(1) of the Treaty and that the various applicants concerned participated in it (Article 6 of the contesteddecision) § 3851 Preliminary observations § 3851 Contested decision § 3854 Concerted practice designed to prevent incursions by competitors on respectivehome markets within the Community § 3864 A - Links between the EPC and Cembureau § 3875 B - Ciments Français internal memos § 3882 C - Documents issuing from the EPC structure showing that the membersof that committee had themselves established a link between domesticmarkets and the EPC's activities § 3894 Continuity of the concerted practice § 3934 Participation of the various applicants concerned in the concerted practice § 3940 Duration of the participation in the infringement by applicants other thanHeracles and Titan § 3973 Infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty § 3981 Access to the file § 3985 A - Incriminating evidence § 3985 B - Exculpatory evidence § 3989 1. Case T-52/95 Valenciana v Commission § 3990 2. Case T-69/95 Hornos Ibéricos v Commission § 4006 3. Case T-88/95 Blue Circle v Commission § 4011 Conclusions § 4015 XII - Pleas alleging errors of assessment and infringements of Article 85(1) and 190of the Treaty, the principle of equal treatment and the rights of the defence inthat the Commission classified as a single and continuous agreement theinfringement referred to in Article 1 of the contested decision and found that thevarious parties involved had participated in that single and continuousagreement § 4016 Contested decision § 4019 Participation by the applicants concerned in the single and continuousCembureau agreement § 4024 A - A single Cembureau agreement § 4025 1. Identity of object between the measures called in question in Articles2 to 6 of the contested decision and the Cembureau agreement § 4026 1.1. Exchanges of information (Article 2 of the contested decision) § 4029 1.2. Franco-Italian concerted practices (contested decision, Article3(1)) § 4033 1.3. The Hispano-Portuguese agreement (Article 3(2)) § 4043 1.4. Franco-German agreements and concerted practices (contesteddecision, Article 3(3)) § 4045 1.5. Elements of the single agreement relating to the ETF (Article 4 ofthe contested decision) § 4050 1.6. ECEC (Article 5 of the contested decision) § 4054 1.7. EPC (Article 6 of the contested decision) § 4055 1.8. Conclusions § 4057 2. The participants' awareness § 4059 2.1. Proof of participation by the various categories of applicantsconcerned § 4059 2.2. Links adduced as evidence in the contested decision § 4069 2.3. Proof of the participation of the indirect members of Cembureauand of Unicem and Buzzi in the Cembureau agreement throughtheir participation in a measure implementing that agreement § 4074 2.3.1. Presence of a member of staff at the Head Delegates meetings atwhich the Cembureau agreement was concluded and/orconfirmed § 4082 2.3.2. Other links § 4089 2.3.3. The particular case of Unicem and Buzzi § 4102 2.4. Conclusions § 4114 3. General arguments questioning the use of the concept of a 'singleagreement § 4115 4. Particular circumstances showing that the various bilateral andmultilateral agreements and concerted practices were not measuresimplementing the single Cembureau agreement § 4140 5. Particular circumstances showing that some applicants had distancedthemselves from the single Cembureau agreement or that theirparticipation in that agreement did not constitute an infringementof Article 85(1) of the Treaty § 4165 B - Continuous nature of the single infringement § 4214 1. Contested decision § 4215 2. Starting date of the infringement § 4222 2.1. Cembureau and its direct members § 4222 2.2. Indirect members of Cembureau § 4248 2.3. Conclusions § 4267 3. Continuous nature of the infringement § 4268 3.1. CBR § 4286 3.2. Cembureau § 4290 3.3. FIC § 4294 3.4. VNC § 4298 3.5. Ciments Luxembourgeois § 4302 3.6. Dyckerhoff § 4306 3.7. SFIC § 4310 3.8. Vicat § 4314 3.9. Ciments Français § 4318 3.10. Heidelberger § 4322 3.11. Lafarge § 4326 3.12. Aalborg § 4330 3.13. BDZ § 4334 3.14. Unicem § 4338 3.15. Valenciana § 4343 3.16. BCA § 4346 3.17. Asland § 4350 3.18. Uniland § 4354 3.19. Oficemen § 4359 3.20. Irish Cement § 4363 3.21. Cimpor § 4367 3.22. SECIL § 4370 3.23. ATIC § 4373 3.24. Italcementi § 4377 3.25. Holderbank § 4382 3.26. Hornos Ibéricos § 4386 3.27. Aker § 4391 3.28. EUROC § 4395 3.29. Cementir § 4399 3.30. Blue Circle § 4403 3.31. AGCI § 4408 3.32. Halkis § 4414 Infringement of the principle of equal treatment § 4418 Infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty § 4436 A - Classification of the Cembureau agreement as a single and continuousagreement § 4436 B - Participation of the various applicants in the single and continuousCembureau agreement § 4448 Infringement of the rights of the defence when the applicants were given accessto the file § 4475 A - Case T-25/95 CBR v Commission § 4479 B - Case T-30/95 FIC v Commission § 4484 C - Case T-37/95 Vicat v Commission § 4486 D - Case T-39/95 Ciments Français v Commission § 4498 E - Case T-42/95 Heidelberger v Commission § 4500 F - Case T-50/95 Unicem v Commission § 4502 G - Case T-55/95 Asland v Commission § 4510 H - Case T-65/95 Italcementi v Commission § 4512 I - Case T-88/95 Blue Circle v Commission § 4514 Final conclusions § 4516 XIII - Pleas of infringements of Article 85(1) and Article 190 of the Treaty and therights of defence in that the Commission finds that there were, within theframework of the WCC, infringements of Article 85(1) of the Treaty and thatvarious applicants participated in them (Article 7 of the contested decision) § 4519 Preliminary observations § 4519 Protection of home markets and coordinated export of production surplusesoutside the Community § 4531 System of exchange of information on individual undertakings § 4593 Effect on inter-State trade § 4604 The applicants' participation in the infringements referred to in Article 7 of thecontested decision § 4618 Time bar of matters found in Article 7 of the contested decision § 4670 Access to the file § 4675 General conclusions § 4692 XIV - The plea alleging that the order in Article 8 of the contested decision isunlawful § 4694 Alternative claims seeking the cancellation or reduction of the fines § 4714 I - Plea alleging inadequate or contradictory statement of reasons in the contesteddecision as regards the fines § 4722 II - Pleas alleging infringements of Article 190 of the Treaty, Article 15(2) ofRegulation No 17, and the principle of equal treatment, inasmuch as theCommission imposed a single fine for the group of infringements found inrelation to the grey cement market § 4753 III - Pleas alleging infringements of Article 190 of the Treaty, Article 15(2) ofRegulation No 17, and the principle of proportionality in the assessment of theintentional nature of the infringements § 4767 IV - Plea alleging infringement of Regulation No 2988/74 on limitation periods § 4788 V - Pleas alleging infringements of Article 190 of the Treaty, Article 15(2) ofRegulation No 17, and the principles of equal treatment and proportionality, andmanifest errors of assessment as regards the duration of the infringement foundin relation to the grey cement market § 4804 VI - Pleas alleging infringements of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and theprinciple of proportionality so far as concerns the duration of the infringementfound in relation to the white cement market § 4816 VII - Pleas alleging infringements of Article 190 of the Treaty, Article 15(2) ofRegulation No 17, and principles of proportionality and equal treatment as wellas manifest errors of assessment in assessing the gravity of the infringementfound in relation to the grey cement market § 4821 The aggravating circumstances found in recital 65, paragraph 5, of the contesteddecision § 4822 The mitigating circumstance found in recital 65, paragraph 6, of the contesteddecision § 4840 Failure to take account of certain mitigating circumstances § 4843 A - Size and influence on the market of the offending undertaking § 4843 B - Absence or minor impact of the anti-competitive effects of theinfringements § 4852 C - Conduct on the market during the period in question § 4868 D - No benefit from the infringement § 4878 E - The state of the cement market during the period in question § 4887 F - Self-defence § 4894 G - Cooperation during the administrative procedure § 4902 H - Intention to comply with Community competition law § 4907 I - Novelty of the matter at issue § 4911 J - The European cement industry as world leader § 4916 K - Legal and technical barriers to intra-Community trade in cement § 4918 L - Arrival of a new competitor on the market § 4920 M - Fines not tax-deductible § 4922 N - Financial situation of the offender § 4924 VIII - Pleas alleging infringements of Article 190 of the Treaty, Article 15(2) ofRegulation No 17, the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, andmanifest errors of assessment in assessing the responsibility of individualundertakings in respect of the infringement found in relation to the grey cementmarket § 4927 IX - Pleas alleging infringements of Article 190 of the Treaty, Article 15(2) ofRegulation No 17, and the principle of proportionality in assessing theresponsibility of individual undertakings in respect of the infringement found inrelation to the white cement market § 4990 X - Pleas alleging infringements of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17, the principlesof proportionality and equal treatment, and manifest errors of assessment asregards the turnover taken into account for the purpose of calculating thefines § 5005 XI - Pleas alleging infringements of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17, and theprinciples of equity, proportionality and equal treatment, owing to the fixing ofthe fines in ecus and the choice of conversion rate § 5051 XII - Pleas alleging infringements of various general principles of Community law § 5059 XIII - Plea alleging infringement of rights of the defence owing to incomplete accessto the Commission file during the administrative procedure § 5090 XIV - Conclusions § 5114 The claims for reimbursement of the fine, together with interest, and for reimbursement ofthe expenses incurred in providing a bank guarantee § 5116 Costs § 5119 1: Languages of the cases: Spanish, Danish, German, Greek, English, French, Italian, Dutch and Portuguese.