Parties

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

In Case T‑57/01,

Solvay SA, established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by L. Simont, P.-A. Foriers, G. Block, F. Louis and A. Vallery, lawyers,

applicant,

v

European Commission, represented by P. Oliver and J. Currall, acting as Agents, and N. Coutrelis, lawyer,

defendant,

APPLICATION for, principally, annulment of Commission Decision 2003/6/EC of 13 December 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 [EC] (COMP/33.133‑C: Soda ash – Solvay) (OJ 2003 L 10, p. 10) and, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant,

THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber),

composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, V. Vadapalas (Rapporteur) and A. Dittrich, Judges,

Registrar: K. Pocheć, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 26 June 2008,

gives the following

Judgment

Grounds

Facts

1. The applicant, Solvay SA, is a company governed by Belgian law, operating in the pharmaceutical, chemical, plastic and processing sectors. It produces, inter alia, soda ash.

2. Soda ash is either naturally present in the form of trona ore (natural soda) or obtained by a chemical process (synthetic soda). Natural soda is obtained by crushing, purifying and roasting trona ore. Synthetic soda is the result of the reaction of ordinary salt and calcium in the ‘ammonia-soda’ process developed by the Solvay brothers in 1863.

3. On 7 February 1978, the applicant entered into ‘total requirements’ contracts with three Belgian glassmakers, its three main traditional customers in Belgium, for a period of five years; those contracts included price alignment clauses.

4. Those agreements led to judicial proceedings brought before the Belgian courts by a United States soda ash producer. By judgment of 20 October 1989, the Liège Court of Appeal, to which the case had been referred by the Court of Cassation, dismissed the United States producer’s action.

5. At the same time, the Commission of the European Communities initiated a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC. By letter of 21 October 1980, the Commission informed the applicant of the elements of the agreements which in its view were open to challenge by reference to Community competition law. The Commission stated, in particular, that it was unable to accept agreements of the ‘total requirements’ or ‘percentage of total requirements’ type, but that it would permit ‘tonnage’ contracts in so far as they left the customer free to obtain supplies, for a not insignificant part of its requirements, from other producers. The Commission fixed the duration of those supply contracts at a maximum of two years and reserved judgment on the competition clause.

6. On 16 December 1980, the applicant sent the Commission a draft letter which it proposed to send to its national directorates, with a view to their adopting ‘tonnage’ contracts in accordance with certain guidelines drawn up in the light of the observations formulated by the Commission.

7. By letter of 2 February 1981, the Commission informed the applicant that the guidelines in its draft letter of 16 December 1980 were consistent with its requests for amendment of the soda ash supply contracts. However, it expressed reservations about the competition clause, known as an ‘English clause’, and requested that the contracts with the three Belgian glassmakers be amended.

8. In accordance with the Commission’s observations on the competition clause, the applicant adapted the draft letter and on 19 February 1981 sent a letter to the different national directorates requesting them to amend their tonnage contracts with the glass industry following the Commission’s observations. By letter of 29 October 1981, the applicant informed the Commission of the progress made in the negotiations with the glass industry designed to ensure that existing contracts complied with the requirements of Community competition law.

9. In those circumstances, the Commission decided to close the proceeding initiated pursuant to Article 81 EC. It also issued a press release on 5 February 1982, in which it stated that, in the soda ash sector, the applicant had amended its supply contracts in order to make them compatible with Community competition law.

10. At the time of the facts forming the subject-matter of the present dispute, the applicant was present in the soda ash sector, through the intermediary of marketing units established in nine European countries, namely Germany, Austria, Belgium, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Switzerland. It also had production facilities in Germany, Austria, Belgium, Spain, France, Italy and Portugal.

11. In 1987, the applicant’s total production capacity was approximately 4 million tonnes and its production in Europe was approximately 3.7 million tonnes.

12. In a fax sent on 2 November 1988, neither dated nor signed but bearing the applicant’s letterhead and addressed to the Commission, it is stated that in 1988 the worldwide production capacity of soda ash was around 37 million tonnes and the worldwide consumption of soda ash was around 31 million tonnes.

13. In 1988, the applicant had, inter alia, 52.5% of the German market, 96.9% of the Austrian market, 82% of the Belgian market, 99.6% of the Spanish market, 54.9% of the French market, 95% of the Italian market, 14.7% of the Netherlands market, 100% of the Portuguese market and 76.1% of the Swiss market.

14. In 1989, soda ash consumption in the European Community was around 5.5 million tonnes, with a market value of around ECU 900 million.

15. In addition to the applicant, the Community producers were, in the period 1987 to 1989, Imperial Chemical Industries (‘ICI’), Rhône‑Poulenc, Akzo, Matthes & Weber and Chemische Fabrik Kalk (‘CFK’), a subsidiary of Kali & Salz, part of the BASF group.

16. The applicant’s customers were undertakings in the glass, chemical and metallurgical sectors. At the material time, its largest customer was Saint-Gobain SA and the other companies in the same group (‘the Saint‑Gobain Group’), not only for soda ash but also for all the applicant’s activities. The Saint-Gobain Group had subsidiaries in various western European States, which obtained supplies of soda ash from the applicant’s national directorates.

17. In 1988, imports from the countries of eastern Europe, which were subject to anti-dumping duties on entering the Community, represented, inter alia, 8.1% of the German market, 2% of the Austrian market, 2.1% of the Belgian market, 1.4% of the French market and 3% of the Italian market.

18. Imports from the United States were also subject to anti-dumping duties, although certain imports were made under the inward processing rules. In 1988, imports of soda ash from the United States represented 2.4% of the Belgian market, 0.9% of the French market and 3% of the Netherlands market, but did not cover the German market.

19. On 5 April 1989, the Commission adopted a decision relating to an investigation to be carried out at the premises of Akzo, CFK, ICI, Matthes & Weber, Rhône-Poulenc and Solvay, pursuant to Article 14(3) of Council Regulation No 17 (Case IV/33.133) (‘the decision ordering the investigation’), which contained, in particular, the following grounds:

‘… the information obtained by the Commission shows that the market for dense soda ash in the [Community] is strictly divided according to national borders, each producer in principle limiting its sales to its “home” market, that is to say, to the Member State or Member States in which its own production centres are sited;

… Solvay, which has seven factories in the [Community], is the only producer delivering supplies in most of the Member States; it does not deliver any supplies in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, which are the territories reserved for ICI;

… ICI does not appear to deliver in the [Community] outside its home market, consisting of the United Kingdom and Ireland, and the other producers also appear to confine their deliveries to their traditional national markets;

… according to the information at the Commission’s disposal, there are different price scales for each Member State, but purchasers obtain supplies only from the national producer, as producers do not wish to sell on the national markets of other producers;

… in addition, in Member States where several producers exist, those producers apply identical price scales and apply price increases that are both almost simultaneous and uniform;

… it is necessary to determine whether the apparent rigidity of the market in the [Community] and the apparent lack of competition [are] the result of agreements or concerted practices between producers within the meaning of Article [81 EC];

… it is also necessary to establish whether agreements that might fall under Article [81 EC] extend to light soda ash, which is also manufactured by the six producers;

… any agreement or concerted practice entailing the partitioning of national markets and/or collusion on prices might constitute serious infringements of Article [81 EC] and their very nature makes it likely that they are applied according to extremely secret procedures;

… in order to allow the Commission to be aware of all the factual elements concerning any agreements or concerted practices and also the identity of the parties concerned, a decision must be adopted requiring the undertakings to submit to an investigation pursuant to Article 14(3) of Regulation No 17 …’

20. Following that statement of the grounds, Article 1 of the decision ordering the investigation states that the applicant and its German and Spanish subsidiaries were ‘required to submit to an investigation relating to … their possible participation in agreements and/or concerted practices contrary to Article [81 EC] having the effect of partitioning the national markets and collusion on the prices of soda ash [and on] the implementation of exclusive purchase agreements with purchasers that might restrict or eliminate competition and reinforce the rigidity of the market for soda ash in the [Community]’.

21. On the basis of the decision ordering the investigation, the Commission carried out investigations at the premises of the various soda ash producers established in the Community. It seized various documents at the premises of the undertakings concerned.

22. On 21 June 1989, the Commission sent the applicant a request for information pursuant to Article 11 of Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962: First Regulation implementing Articles [81 EC] and [82 EC] (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87), in the version applicable at the material time, and then, on 8 July 1989, it sent a request for information to the applicant’s German subsidiary; those requests referred to both Article 81 EC and Article 82 EC.

23. On 19 February 1990, the Commission decided to open a proceeding on its own initiative against the applicant, ICI and CFK pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation No 17.

24. On 13 March 1990, the Commission sent a statement of objections to the applicant, ICI and CFK. Each of those undertakings received only the part or parts of the statement of objections relating to the infringements concerning it, to which the relevant inculpatory evidence was annexed.

25. The Commission constituted a single file for all the infringements referred to in the statement of objections.

26. As regards the present case, the Commission concluded under Section IV of the statement of objections, entitled ‘Solvay’, that the applicant had abused the dominant position which it held on the soda ash market in continental western Europe.

27. On 28 May 1990, the applicant submitted its written observations in response to the objections raised by the Commission.

28. On 19 December 1990, the Commission adopted Decision 91/299/EEC relating to a proceeding under Article [82 EC] (IV/33.133‑C: Soda-ash – Solvay) (OJ 1991 L 152, p. 21). In that decision, which was notified to the applicant by letter of 1 March 1991, the Commission found that ‘[the applicant had] infringed Article [82 EC] from about 1983 to the present time by a course of conduct aimed at excluding or severely limiting competition and consisting of … the conclusion of agreements with customers which require them to purchase the whole or a very large proportion of their requirements of soda ash from [the applicant] for an indefinite or excessively long period[,] the granting of substantial rebates and other financial inducements referable to marginal tonnage over and above the customer’s basic contracted tonnage in order to ensure that [customers] buy all or most of their requirements from [the applicant] [and] making the granting of rebates dependent upon the customer agreeing to buy the whole of its requirements from [the applicant]’.

29. Article 3 of Decision 91/299 provides that ‘[a] fine of ECU 20 million is imposed on [the applicant] in respect of the infringement … specified …’.

30. On the same date, the Commission also adopted Decision 91/297/EEC relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article [81 EC] (IV/33.133‑A: Soda ash – Solvay, ICI) (OJ 1991 L 152, p. 1), in which it found that ‘[the applicant] and ICI [had] infringed Article [81 EC] by participating since 1 January 1973 until at least the institution of the present proceedings in a concerted practice by which they confined their soda ash sales in the Community to their respective home markets, namely continental western Europe for [the applicant] and the United Kingdom and Ireland for ICI’. The applicant and ICI were each ordered to pay a fine of ECU 7 million.

31. On the same date, moreover, the Commission adopted Decision 91/298/EEC relating to a proceeding under Article [81 EC] (IV/33.133‑B: Soda ash – Solvay, CFK) (OJ 1991 L 152, p. 16), in which it found that ‘[the applicant] and CFK [had] infringed Article [81 EC] by participating from about 1987 until the present time in a market-sharing agreement by which [the applicant] guaranteed to CFK a minimum annual sales tonnage of soda ash in Germany calculated by reference to CFK’s achieved sales in 1986, and compensated CFK for any shortfall by purchasing from it the tonnages required to bring its sales to the guaranteed minimum’. The applicant and CFK were ordered to pay fines of ECU 3 million and ECU 1 million respectively.

32. In addition, on the same date, the Commission adopted Decision 91/300/EEC relating to a proceeding under Article [82 EC] (IV/33.133‑D: Soda ash – ICI) (OJ 1991 L 152, p. 40), in which it found that ‘ICI [had] infringed Article [82 EC] from about 1983 until at least the end of 1989 by a course of conduct aimed at excluding or severely limiting competition and consisting of … granting substantial rebates and other financial inducements referable to marginal tonnage in order to ensure that customers buy all or most of their requirements from ICI[,] securing the agreement of customers to buy the whole or substantially the whole of their requirements from ICI and/or to restrict their purchases of competitive material to a specific tonnage [and] in one case at least making the granting of rebates and other financial benefits dependent upon the [customer] agreeing to buy the whole of its requirements from ICI’. ICI was ordered to pay a fine of ECU 10 million.

33. On 2 May 1991, the applicant brought an action before this Court for annulment of Decision 91/299. On the same date, the applicant also sought annulment of Decisions 91/297 and 91/298. On 14 May 1991, ICI sought annulment of Decisions 91/297 and 91/300.

34. By judgment of 29 June 1995 in Case T‑32/91 Solvay v Commission [1995] ECR II‑1825 (‘ Solvay III ’), the Court annulled Decision 91/299 on the ground that the authentication of that decision had taken place after it had been notified, which constituted an infringement of an essential procedural requirement within the meaning of Article 230 EC.

35. On the same date, the Court also annulled Decision 91/298, in so far as it concerned the applicant (Case T‑31/91 Solvay v Commission , not published in the ECR; ‘ Solvay II ’), and Decision 91/300 (Case T‑37/91 ICI v Commission [1995] ECR II‑1901; ‘ ICI II ’) on the ground of the improper authentication of the contested decisions. In addition, the Court annulled Decision 91/297 (Case T‑30/91 Solvay v Commission [1995] ECR II‑1775; ‘ Solvay I ’ and Case T‑36/91 ICI v Commission [1995] ECR II‑1847; ‘ ICI I ’), in so far as it concerned the applicants in those two cases, on the ground that there had been a breach of the right of access to the file.

36. By applications lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 30 August 1995, the Commission appealed against the judgments in Solvay II , paragraph 35 above, Solvay III , paragraph 34 above, and ICI II , paragraph 35 above.

37. By judgments of 6 April 2000 in Case C‑286/95 P Commission v ICI [2000] ECR I‑2341 and Joined Cases C‑287/95 P and C‑288/95 P Commission v Solvay [2000] ECR I‑2391, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeals against the judgments in ICI II , paragraph 35 above, Solvay II , paragraph 35 above, and Solvay III , paragraph 34 above.

38. On Tuesday 12 December 2000, a press agency issued a press release worded as follows:

‘The European Commission will fine the chemical industry companies Solvay SA and Imperial Chemical Industries plc … on Wednesday for infringement of European Union competition law, a spokesperson announced on Tuesday.

The fines for alleged abuse of a dominant position on the soda ash market had initially been imposed 10 years ago, but were annulled by [the European Court of Justice] on procedural grounds.

The Commission will adopt the same decision again on Wednesday, but in the proper form, the spokesperson stated.

The substance of the decision has never been challenged by the companies. We shall adopt the same decision again, said [the spokesperson].’

39. On 13 December 2000, the Commission adopted Decision 2003/6/EC relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 [EC] (COMP/33.133‑C: Soda ash – Solvay) (OJ 2003 L 10, p. 10; ‘the contested decision’).

40. On the same date, the Commission also adopted Decisions 2003/5/EC relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (COMP/33.133‑B: Soda ash – Solvay, CFK) (OJ 2003 L 10, p. 1) and 2003/7/EC relating to a proceeding under Article 82 [EC] (COMP/33.133‑D: Soda ash – ICI) (OJ 2003 L 10, p. 33).

41. The operative part of the contested decision reads as follows:

‘ Article 1

Solvay … infringed Article [82 EC] from 1983 until around the end of 1990 by a course of conduct aimed at excluding or severely limiting competition and consisting of:

(a) the conclusion of agreements with customers which required them to purchase the whole or a very large proportion of their requirements of soda ash from Solvay for an indefinite or excessively long period;

(b) the granting of substantial rebates and other financial inducements referable to marginal tonnage over and above the customer’s basic contracted tonnage in order to ensure that [customers] bought all or most of their requirements from Solvay;

(c) making the granting of rebates dependent upon the customer agreeing to buy the whole of its requirements from Solvay.

Article 2

A fine of EUR 20 million is imposed on Solvay in respect of the infringement specified in Article 1(b) and (c).

…’

42. The contested decision is drafted in virtually the same terms as Decision 91/299. The Commission merely made a few editorial amendments and added a new section entitled ‘Proceedings before the [General Court] and the Court of Justice’.

43. In that new section of the contested decision, the Commission, referring to the judgment in Joined Cases T‑305/94 to T‑307/94, T‑313/94 to T‑316/94, T‑318/94, T‑325/94, T‑328/94, T‑329/94 and T‑335/94 Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij and Others v Commission [1999] ECR II‑931 (‘the judgment of this Court in PVC II ’), considered that it was ‘entitled to adopt again a decision that [had] been annulled on account of purely procedural defects’, that ‘a new decision [might] in such cases be adopted without initiating fresh administrative proceedings’ and that it was ‘not required to organise a further hearing if the text of the new decision [did] not contain objections other than those set out in the first decision’ (recital 199).

44. The Commission also stated in the contested decision that the limitation period must be extended by the time during which the action for annulment of Decision 91/299 had been pending before this Court and the Court of Justice, in application of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2988/74 of 26 November 1974 concerning limitation periods in proceedings and the enforcement of sanctions under the rules of the European Economic Community relating to transport and competition (OJ 1974 L 319, p. 1) (recitals 204 and 205). Thus, taking account of the circumstances of the case, the Commission considered that it had until September 2004 to adopt a new decision (recital 207). It also stated that the rights of the defence were not infringed if the new decision was taken within a reasonable time (recital 199).

45. As regards the actual infringement, the Commission stated in the contested decision that the product and geographic area in which the applicant’s economic power fell to be assessed was the market for soda ash in the Community, excluding the United Kingdom and Ireland (recital 136).

46. In order to assess the applicant’s market power for the purposes of the present case, the Commission examined the relevant economic factors and concluded in the contested decision that, throughout the period under consideration, the applicant had occupied a dominant position within the meaning of Article 82 EC (recitals 137 to 148).

47. As regards the abuse of that dominant position, the Commission stated in the contested decision that the applicant had ‘tied’ its customers by means of a number of devices which all served the same exclusionary purpose (recital 150). In that regard, the Commission explained that:

– from 1982, the applicant had adopted a system of progressive rebates specifically intended to ensure customer fidelity and exclude or limit competition (recitals 151 to 160);

– the applicant had entered into a secret protocol with Saint-Gobain, intended to confirm the applicant in the position of Saint-Gobain’s exclusive or near-exclusive supplier in western Europe apart from France. Thus, payment of the 1.5% ‘group’ rebate, calculated on all Saint-Gobain’s purchases in Europe, was conditional upon Saint-Gobain continuing to give the applicant priority as its supplier (recitals 161 to 165);

– the applicant had entered into express and de facto exclusivity agreements with some of its customers (recitals 166 to 176);

– various forms of competition clauses and similar mechanisms strengthened the tie with the applicant, limited the opportunities for the customer to change supplier and made it more difficult for competitors to supply the applicant’s established customers (recitals 177 to 180);

– the rebate system applied by the applicant constituted discriminatory practices (recitals 181 to 185).

48. In the words of the contested decision, ‘[t]he fidelity rebates and other inducements to exclusivity applied by [the applicant] affected trade between Member States by reinforcing the links between the customers and the dominant supplier’ and ‘[t]he various devices employed by [the applicant] to tie customers had the result of reinforcing the structural rigidity and the division of the soda ash market along national lines, and thus harmed or threatened to harm the attainment of the objective of a single market between Member States’ (recital 187).

49. The Commission stated in the contested decision that the infringements had been of extreme gravity since the applicant was the major producer of soda ash in the Community and the infringements had enabled it to consolidate its hold over the market by excluding effective competition in a large part of the common market (recital 191).

50. The Commission further indicated in the contested decision that the infringements had begun around 1983, very shortly after the negotiations with the Commission and the closure of the file, and had continued until at least the end of 1990 (recital 195).

51. On 13 December 2000, the Commission also issued a press release stating that it would adopt decisions imposing fines on the applicant and ICI identical to those initially imposed in the ‘Soda ash’ cases.

Procedure

52. By application lodged at the Court Registry on 12 March 2001, the applicant brought the present action.

53. In the application, the applicant requested the Court to order the Commission to produce all the documents in its file in order to ascertain whether access to those documents during the administrative procedure would have been capable of affecting the exercise of its rights of defence.

54. On 8 May 2001, the case was assigned to the Fourth Chamber of the Court and a Judge-Rapporteur was appointed.

55. After being authorised to do so by the Court, the applicant and the Commission submitted their observations, on 6 and 23 December 2002 respectively, on the consequences to be drawn in the present case from the judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 October 2002 in Joined Cases C‑238/99 P, C‑244/99 P, C‑245/99 P, C‑247/99 P, C‑250/99 P to C‑252/99 P and C‑254/99 P Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij and Others v Commission [2002] ECR I‑8375 (‘the judgment of the Court of Justice in PVC II ’).

56. Following a change in the composition of the Chambers of the Court with effect from 1 October 2003, the Judge-Rapporteur was assigned to the First Chamber, and this case was therefore assigned to that Chamber on 8 October 2003.

57. On 19 December 2003, the Court invited the Commission to produce the statement of objections, the annexes thereto and a detailed enumerative list of all the documents in the file. That list was to contain a brief indication that would enable the author, the nature and the content of each item to be identified. The Court also asked the Commission to inform it as to which of those documents had been accessible to the applicant during the administrative procedure.

58. On 13 February 2004, the Commission produced the statement of objections and the annexes thereto, and also the enumerative list requested by the Court. It requested further time to respond to the Court’s last request.

59. By letter of 10 March 2004, the Commission stated that during the administrative procedure the applicant had had access to the documents which supported the statement of objections and which were annexed to that statement of objections. The Commission also referred to 65 ‘sub‑files’ making up the file, of which 22 ‘sub-files’ originated in the applicant’s headquarters or the headquarters of one of its subsidiaries (namely ‘sub-files’ Nos 2 to 14, 24 to 27, 50 to 52 and 62 to 65 and part of sub-file No 61). The Commission claimed that the procedure followed in 1990 complied with the existing case-law on the right of access to the file and added that, following a rereading of the investigation file, there was nothing to suggest at that stage that there had been any breach of the rights of the defence during the administrative procedure, even when that investigation file was examined in the light of subsequent case-law on the right of access to the file.

60. By letter of 21 June 2004, the Commission sent the Court Registry a revised enumerative list of the documents in the administrative file which was more complete than the list provided on 13 February 2004. Like the previous list, this revised enumerative list referred to 65 ‘sub‑files’. The Commission also listed some documents originating for the most part in Oberland Glas.

61. By letter of 21 July 2004, the Court invited the applicant to indicate which documents in the revised enumerative list had not been communicated to it during the administrative procedure and, in its view, might contain material which could have been of use for its defence.

62. By letter of 29 September 2004, the applicant asserted that the revised enumerative list was incomplete and inaccurate. The applicant also indicated those documents in that revised enumerative list which appeared to be of use for its defence and which it wished to consult. According to the applicant, those documents might have enabled it to develop its arguments as to the definition of the relevant geographic market, the absence of a dominant position and the absence of abuse of a dominant position.

63. The composition of the Chambers of the Court changed with effect from 13 September 2004 and the Judge-Rapporteur was assigned to the newly composed Fourth Chamber, to which the present case was therefore assigned on 7 October 2004.

64. On 17 December 2004, the Court invited the Commission to lodge at the Registry the documents in the file to which the applicant had referred in its letter of 29 September 2004, in confidential and non‑confidential versions.

65. By letter of 28 January 2005, the Commission lodged at the Court Registry the confidential version of the documents in the file which had been requested. It requested further time to produce any non‑confidential version that might be necessary, as the undertakings concerned had to be consulted concerning their interest in maintaining confidentiality. The Commission also stated:

‘[A]lthough the list contains all the documents now in [the Commission’s] possession, it does not include all the files which had been mentioned to the [General Court] in the first Soda ash case. The few missing files have proved impossible to find, in spite of a lengthy search.’

66. By letter of 15 March 2005, the Commission, after stating that the undertakings concerned did not seek confidential treatment, submitted the following observations:

‘As regards the files which could not be found, the Commission regrets that it is unable to give a wholly reliable answer to the Court’s questions.

The administrative file ([that is to say] the file covering the procedure from the initiation of the investigation to the issue of the statement of objections) now in the Commission’s possession consists of 65 numbered binders covering the period to September 1989 [and also] the file bearing number 71 and containing the statement of objections and the annexes thereto and [also] an unnumbered binder bearing the title “Oberland Glasˮ. It is therefore likely that five binders are missing.

As regards the contents of the missing binders, the Commission regrets that it is impossible to draw up a complete list of the documents which have disappeared, as the indexes to those binders cannot be found either. That said, there is every reason to believe that at least some of [those binders] contained the correspondence relating to Article 11 of Regulation No 17, which corresponds to the explanation given to the Court by the Commission concerning the administrative file in 1990. For example, it is probable that … ICI’s response to the Commission’s request for information of 19 June 1989 is part of the missing files: that request to ICI is in the administrative file which the Commission still has, but the response is missing.’

67. On 14 April 2005, the applicant consulted at the Court Registry the documents in the file mentioned in its letter of 29 September 2004.

68. On 15 July 2005, the applicant submitted its observations on the usefulness for its defence of the documents consulted. On 18 November 2005, the Commission responded to the applicant’s observations.

69. The Judge-Rapporteur initially designated left office and the President of the Court, by decision of 22 June 2006, appointed a new Judge‑Rapporteur.

70. Following a change in the composition of the Chambers of the Court with effect from 25 September 2007, the Judge-Rapporteur was assigned to the Sixth Chamber, to which the present case was therefore assigned on 5 October 2007.

71. On 12 February 2008, as Judge Tchipev was prevented from attending, the President of the Court designated Judge Dittrich to complete the Chamber, pursuant to Article 32(3) of the Rules of Procedure.

72. Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur, the Court (Sixth Chamber) decided to open the oral procedure and, by way of measures of organisation of procedure provided for in Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure, put a number of written questions to the applicant and the Commission on 5 May 2008. The parties replied within the prescribed period.

73. The parties presented oral argument and their answers to the Court’s oral questions at the hearing on 26 June 2008.

Forms of order sought by the parties

74. The applicant claims that the Court should:

– principally, declare that the proceedings are time-barred and, in any event, annul the contested decision;

– in the alternative, declare that the Commission’s power to impose fines was time-barred and, in any event, annul Article 2 of the contested decision in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 20 million on the applicant;

– further in the alternative, declare that it is inappropriate to impose a fine on the applicant, or, at the very least, substantially reduce the fine;

– by way of measure of inquiry, order the Commission to produce all the internal documents relating to the adoption of the contested decision and, in particular, the minutes of any meeting of the College of Commissioners at which the contested decision was discussed;

– order the Commission to produce all the documents in its file in Case COMP/33.133;

– order the Commission to pay the costs.

75. The Commission contends that the Court should:

– dismiss the action as unfounded;

– order the applicant to pay the costs.

Law

76. The applicant claims, principally, that the contested decision should be annulled and, in the alternative, that the fine imposed on it by that decision should be annulled or reduced.

1. The claim seeking annulment of the contested decision

77. The applicant raises, in substance, six pleas in law in support of its claim that the contested decision should be annulled. Those pleas allege, first, failure to take into account the time that had elapsed; second, breach of essential procedural requirements; third, incorrect definition of the geographic market by the Commission; fourth, absence of a dominant position; fifth, absence of abuse of a dominant position; and, sixth, breach of the right of access to the file.

First plea: failure to take into account the time that had elapsed

78. The first plea consists of two parts, alleging, respectively, incorrect application of the limitation rules laid down in Regulation No 2988/74 and breach of the ‘reasonable time’ principle.

First part: incorrect application of the limitation rules

– Arguments of the parties

79. The applicant claims that the reasoning followed by the Commission with respect to compliance with the limitation rules is contrary to the letter and the spirit of Regulation No 2988/74.

80. In the applicant’s submission, the subject-matter of the appeal brought by the Commission on 30 August 1995, which, pursuant to Article 60 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, did not have suspensory effect, was not Decision 91/299, which had retroactively ceased to exist, but the judgment in Solvay III , paragraph 34 above, annulling that decision. Under Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal is to be limited to points of law and the Court of Justice reviews the legality of the judgment under appeal by reference to the definitive findings of fact made by this Court.

81. While the expression ‘proceedings pending before the Court’ in Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/74 must now be read as including this Court, the establishment of a second court cannot allow the period during which the limitation period is suspended to be extended to cover proceedings whose subject-matter is not the contested decision. Furthermore, to maintain that Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/74 entailed suspension of the limitation period during proceedings on appeal would amount to giving effect to a decision which has been annulled ab initio , which would be unprecedented in the common practice of the Member States.

82. The applicant refers to paragraph 1098 of the judgment of this Court in PVC II , paragraph 43 above, and observes that the specific purpose of Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/74 is to enable the limitation period to be suspended where the Commission is prevented from acting for an objective reason not attributable to it and connected precisely with the fact that an action is pending. The applicant takes the view that in the present case the Commission could claim to be prevented from acting while the action was pending before this Court. On the other hand, from the time when the judgment of this Court was delivered, the Commission, provided that it observed the ‘reasonable time’ principle, was free to adopt a new decision. By bringing an appeal, the Commission thus took the risk that its action would be time-barred, when it was aware of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 June 1994 in Case C‑137/92 P Commission v BASF and Others [1994] ECR I‑2555, where the Court adjudicated on the failure to authenticate acts adopted by the College of Commissioners. The Commission’s failure to act while its appeal was pending before the Court of Justice cannot therefore be justified by any objective reason.

83. Consequently, only the duration of the proceedings before this Court ought to have been taken into account as prolonging the limitation period. The limitation period therefore ended on 27 January 2000, well before the contested decision was adopted.

84. The applicant also observes that that interpretation was not contradicted in the judgment of this Court in PVC II , paragraph 43 above. In that case, the Commission’s new decision was adopted within a period of less than five years increased only by the ‘suspension period’ relating to the proceedings before this Court. Thus the question whether an appeal has suspensory effect within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/74 was not examined in the judgment of this Court in PVC II .

85. In the reply, the applicant further submits that the Commission’s argument would amount to depriving the judgment in Solvay III , paragraph 34 above, of any effect until such time as it was upheld by the Court of Justice, which would be to ignore the binding force of that judgment. Furthermore, to give Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/74 a broad interpretation, covering situations in which the Commission is not prevented from acting, would be contrary to the principle of legal certainty.

86. Last, in the observations which it submitted following the judgment of the Court of Justice in PVC II , paragraph 55 above, the applicant maintains that neither this Court nor the Court of Justice can have intended, in that case, to resolve the question whether an appeal brought by the Commission against a judgment of the General Court annulling a decision has the effect of suspending the limitation period during the appeal proceedings.

87. The Commission disputes the arguments put forward by the applicant.

– Findings of the Court

88. It should be emphasised, as a preliminary point, that Regulation No 2988/74 established a complete system of rules covering in detail the periods within which the Commission is entitled, without undermining the fundamental requirement of legal certainty, to impose fines on undertakings which are the subject of procedures under the Community competition rules (Case T‑213/00 CMA CGM and Others v Commission [2003] ECR II‑913, paragraph 324, and Case T‑410/03 Hoechst v Commission [2008] ECR II‑881, paragraph 223).

89. Thus, in accordance with Article 1(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation No 2988/74, and also with Article 2(3) of that regulation, the limitation period in proceedings expires if the Commission has not imposed a fine or a penalty within five years from the date on which it began to run where, during that time, no interruptive action is taken or, at the latest, within 10 years from the date on which it began to run where interruptive action has been taken. Nevertheless, pursuant to Article 2(3) of that regulation, the limitation period thus defined is extended by the time for which limitation is suspended pursuant to Article 3 (judgment of the Court of Justice in PVC II , paragraph 55 above, paragraph 140).

90. Under Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/74, the limitation period in proceedings is to be suspended for as long as the decision of the Commission is the subject of proceedings pending before the Court of Justice of the European Communities.

91. In the present case, it is apparent from the contested decision that, in the case in question, the Commission applied the limitation rules as follows.

92. First of all, the Commission considered that, as the infringements in question were continuous or continued infringements, the limitation period had begun to run at the end of 1990. The Commission added that, even on the assumption that the infringement had ceased on 31 December 1990 and that adoption and notification of Decision 91/299 had not interrupted the running of the limitation period, it had at least until the end of 1995 to adopt its decision (recital 203).

93. Next, the Commission considered that the limitation period must be extended by the time during which the action for annulment of the decision was pending before this Court (recital 204). In this case, since the action had been brought before this Court on 2 May 1991, judgment had been delivered by this Court on 29 June 1995, the appeal had been lodged before the Court of Justice on 30 August 1995 and judgment had been delivered by the Court of Justice on 6 April 2000, the limitation period had been suspended for at least eight years, nine months and four days (recital 206). Consequently, the Commission considered that it had until September 2004 to adopt a new decision (recital 207).

94. It follows that, according to the Commission, the contested decision, of 13 December 2000, was adopted before the expiry of the limitation period.

95. Such reasoning is consistent with the limitation rules applicable in the present case.

96. First of all, the infringements which the applicant was found to have committed ceased with the adoption of Decision 91/299, on 19 December 1990. The limitation period therefore began to run on that date.

97. Next, as the parties correctly observe, the reference in Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/74 to ‘proceedings pending before the Court of Justice of the European Communities’ must be understood, since the establishment of what is now the General Court, as envisaging in the first place proceedings pending before this Court, since actions imposing fines or penalties in the field of competition law fall within its jurisdiction. The limitation period was therefore suspended throughout the duration of the proceedings before this Court.

98. Last, it follows from paragraph 157 of the judgment of the Court of Justice in PVC II , paragraph 55 above, that, within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/74, the limitation period is suspended for as long as the decision at issue is the subject of proceedings pending ‘before the [General Court] and the Court of Justice’. Thus, in the present case, the limitation period was also suspended throughout the duration of the proceedings before the Court of Justice, without there being any need to rule on the period between delivery of the judgment of this Court and the lodging of the appeal with the Court of Justice.

99. Consequently, following that suspension of the limitation period, no period of more than five years elapsed, in the present case, after the end of the infringements or after any interruption of the limitation period.

100. The contested decision was therefore adopted in compliance with the limitation rules laid down in Regulation No 2988/74.

101. None of the arguments put forward by the applicant is capable of calling that consideration into question.

102. First, it must be pointed out that Article 60 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/74 are different in scope. The fact that an appeal does not have suspensory effect does not deprive Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/74, which concerns situations in which the Commission must await the decision of the Community judicature, of all effect. The applicant’s argument that the Commission ought not to have taken account of the period during which an appeal was pending before the Court of Justice cannot therefore be upheld, since the result would be to deprive the judgment of the Court of Justice on appeal of its raison d’être and its effects.

103. Second, as regards the applicant’s argument that the establishment of a second court does not permit the period of suspension of the limitation period to be extended, it must be borne in mind that Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/74 protects the Commission against the effect of the limitation period in situations in which it must await the decision of the Community judicature in proceedings beyond its control before knowing whether the contested act is or is not vitiated by illegality (see, to that effect, the judgment of the Court of Justice in PVC II , paragraph 55 above, paragraph 144).

104. Third, as regards the argument that the judgment of this Court in PVC II , paragraph 43 above, is not relevant for the outcome of the present dispute, it is clear, on the contrary, from the wording of that judgment, upheld on appeal, that, generally, the limitation period must be increased by the period during which the limitation period was suspended, that is to say, not only the period during which the proceedings were pending before this Court but also the period during which the proceedings were pending before the Court of Justice.

105. Fourth, as regards the argument that suspension of the limitation period throughout the duration of proceedings on appeal would amount to giving effects to a decision that was annulled at first instance, it is sufficient to observe that suspension of the limitation period allows the Commission to adopt a new decision only where the appeal against a judgment of the General Court annulling a decision of the Commission is dismissed. That suspension of the limitation period has no effect on the decision annulled by the judgment of the General Court.

106. Fifth, as regards the applicant’s argument that the Commission ought to have adopted a new decision without awaiting the judgment of the Court of Justice, it must be observed that the Commission was indeed not formally prevented from acting following the annulment of the initial decision by this Court, but that does not mean that the Commission necessarily had to adopt a new decision without awaiting the judgment of the Court of Justice. Nor is the Commission to be criticised for having exercised its rights of defence by lodging an appeal and awaiting the judgment of the Court of Justice before adopting a new decision. Such an interpretation of Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/74, moreover, is consistent with the principle of legal certainty, which aims to ensure that situations and legal relationships governed by Community law remain foreseeable (Case C‑63/93 Duff and Others [1996] ECR I‑569, paragraph 20, and Case T‑73/95 Oliveira v Commission [1997] ECR II‑381, paragraph 29).

107. Sixth, it should be added that the interpretation of Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/74 proposed by the applicant leads to serious practical difficulties. If the Commission must adopt a new decision following annulment of a decision of the General Court, without awaiting the judgment of the Court of Justice, there is a risk that two decisions having the same object would coexist if the Court of Justice should set aside the judgment of the General Court.

108. Furthermore, it seems to be contrary to the requirements of the economy of the administrative procedure to require the Commission, with the sole aim of ensuring that the limitation period does not expire, to adopt a new decision before it knows whether the initial decision is or is not vitiated by illegality.

109. It follows from all the foregoing that the first part of the first plea must be rejected.

Second part: breach of the ‘reasonable time’ principle

– Arguments of the parties

110. The applicant submits that it was aware of the ‘charge against it’ on 13 March 1990, the date on which the statement of objections was addressed to it, that is to say, 11 years before the date on which the present action was brought. In addition, the importance of the present case was especially high for the applicant, since in Decision 91/299 and then in the contested decision the Commission found that it had committed infringements of ‘extreme gravity’ and imposed a fine of EUR 20 million. However, at the time when the applicant brought the present action no final decision had been adopted with respect to the charges laid against the applicant in the statement of objections.

111. The applicant refers to Article 6(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the ECHR’), signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, and observes that, taken as a whole, the proceedings initiated in February 1990 manifestly exceeded a reasonable time. In that regard, the Community case-law does not envisage that the duration of the proceedings is to be assessed stage by stage. Accordingly, there can be no justification for the Commission’s waiting for five and a half years in order to adopt a new decision, particularly as the appeal to the Court of Justice does not have suspensory effect.

112. Following the judgment in Solvay III , paragraph 34 above, the Commission chose not only to bring an appeal which it could expect to be dismissed in the light of the judgment in Commission v BASF and Others , paragraph 82 above, but also to await the outcome of that appeal before adopting the contested decision. In addition, according to the applicant, the Commission waited a further eight months after the judgment in Commission v Solvay , paragraph 37 above, whereas, in the case giving rise to the judgment of this Court in PVC II , paragraph 43 above, the new decision had been adopted within one and a half months.

113. Furthermore, the Commission confuses a ‘reasonable time’ and the limitation period by wrongly considering that it was entitled to wait until 2004 in order to adopt a new decision. Thus, in the contested decision, the Commission does not identify the evidence on which it concludes that the ‘reasonable time’ principle was complied with in this case. In the applicant’s submission, whatever the justification for the length of each stage of the proceedings, ‘a period of 14 to 16 years, or even more, for the entire proceedings between the statement of objections and the final decision of the [General Court] or the Court of Justice’ cannot be described as reasonable.

114. Accordingly, the Court must find that the reasonable time was exceeded and annul the contested decision on the ground that it is no longer possible, at this stage, to adjudicate within a reasonable time on the charges laid against the applicant. Any other solution, consisting, for example, in taking account of the fact that the reasonable time was exceeded when setting the amount of the fine, would not make good the infringement of Article 6 of the ECHR. The applicant further maintains that, in application of the principles laid down by the European Court of Human Rights, it is not required to prove that the fact that a reasonable time was exceeded harmed its rights of defence, which would constitute a separate ground of annulment. The test for harm to the rights of the defence is distinct from the right to be tried within a reasonable time in a criminal matter.

115. In any event, the applicant claims that the fact that a reasonable time was exceeded and the resulting deterioration of the evidence prevent it from defending its interests, by depriving it, in particular, of the possibility of substantiating the arguments put forward in the application. In addition, the applicant contends that it is no longer able to call upon former employees who were employed in the sector and the subsidiary concerned. In particular, the applicant asserts that it is unable to undertake detailed analyses of the conditions in which soda ash was produced and supplied in the 1980s, since several of its production units have since closed and the records relating to those production units were not systematically preserved.

116. The applicant maintains that the Commission’s negligent failure to act during the five and a half years following the judgment in Solvay III , paragraph 34 above, is particularly reprehensible. In that regard, the applicant submits that it had legitimate grounds to believe that the Commission had decided not to reopen the file, so that it did not seek to preserve a systematic record of the facts and documents that might be of use in its defence. In addition, its policy on preserving records required, other than in exceptional circumstances, the systematic destruction of the records after 10 years, or even after five years.

117. Last, to take the view that the burden of proving unreasonableness is borne by the applicant would be contrary to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, which has held that it is for the national authorities, where there have been long periods of inactivity, to explain the reasons for those periods of inactivity, which can be justified only in exceptional circumstances. The applicant also contends that, unlike the Commission, it cannot be accused of engaging in a manoeuvre designed to delay the proceedings since 1989. The applicant observes that the Commission has shown itself to be incapable of complying with its internal rules on authentication and with the principle of legal certainty, which delayed the substantive examination of the initial decision by several years.

118. The Commission disputes the arguments put forward by the applicant.

– Findings of the Court

119. As a preliminary point, it must be borne in mind that, in competition matters, the principle that action must be taken within a reasonable period must be observed in administrative proceedings conducted pursuant to Regulation No 17 which may lead to the penalties provided for therein and in the judicial proceedings before the Community judicature (judgment of the Court of Justice in PVC II , paragraph 55 above, paragraph 179).

120. In the first place, in support of the complaint alleging that the duration of the administrative procedure was unreasonable, the applicant relies, in particular, on the fact that, although the appeal does not have suspensory effect, the Commission, without any reason, waited five and a half years before adopting a new decision following the annulment of Decision 91/299 by the judgment in Solvay III , paragraph 34 above.

121. However, as the Court found when it examined the first part of the first plea, the limitation period was suspended in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/74 throughout the duration of the entire proceedings before the Court of Justice when the Commission appealed against the judgment in Solvay III , paragraph 34 above. The Commission cannot therefore be criticised for having breached the ‘reasonable time’ principle solely because it waited until the Court of Justice had made a determination in the context of such an appeal before adopting the contested decision.

122. In the second place, the applicant claims, more generally, that the duration of the administrative procedure, taken as a whole, that is to say, from the issue of the statement of objections until the adoption of the contested decision, exceeded a reasonable time.

123. That argument must be rejected.

124. In the context of the examination of a complaint alleging breach of the ‘reasonable time’ principle, a distinction must be drawn between the administrative procedure and the judicial proceedings. Thus, the period during which the Community judicature examined the legality of Decision 91/299 and the validity of the judgment in Solvay III , paragraph 34 above, cannot be taken into account in determining the duration of the procedure before the Commission (see, to that effect, the judgment of this Court in PVC II , paragraph 43 above, paragraph 123).

125. In the third place, the applicant takes issue with the duration of the administrative procedure between delivery of the judgment in Commission v Solvay , paragraph 37 above, and the adoption of the contested decision.

126. In that regard, it must be borne in mind that that period began on 6 April 2000, the date of delivery of the judgment in Commission v Solvay , paragraph 37 above, and ended on 13 December 2000 when the contested decision was adopted. That stage of the administrative procedure therefore lasted eight months and seven days.

127. During that period, the Commission merely made a number of formal amendments to Decision 91/299, in particular by inserting a new passage on ‘Proceedings before the [General Court] and the Court of Justice’, concerning the assessment of compliance with the limitation periods. Nor was the adoption of the contested decision preceded by any additional measure of investigation, as the Commission relied on the results of the investigation carried out 10 years earlier. It must be acknowledged, however, that, even in those circumstances, certain checks and consultations within the administration may prove essential for the purposes of arriving at such a result.

128. From that perspective, the period of eight months and seven days between the delivery of the judgment in Commission v Solvay , paragraph 37 above, and the adoption of the contested decision cannot be considered unreasonable.

129. In the fourth place, as regards the duration of the administrative procedure between the issue of the statement of objections and the adoption of Decision 91/299, it should be observed that the applicant has not claimed that that period was open to criticism as such. The applicant merely asserted that the reasonableness of the period must be evaluated as from 13 March 1990, namely the date on which the statement of objections was notified to it, without criticising the period of eleven and a half months between notification of the statement of objections and the adoption of Decision 91/299 on 1 March 1991.

130. It follows from all the foregoing that the applicant has adduced no evidence on which it might be considered that the duration of the administrative procedure as a whole was excessive in this case.

131. Even though the phase of the administrative procedure preceding notification of the statement of objections must be taken into account (see, to that effect, Case C‑105/04 P Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied v Commission [2006] ECR I‑8725, paragraph 51), the duration of the entire administrative procedure cannot be considered excessive, in the light of, in particular, the investigations carried out from April 1989, the requests for information subsequently issued and the opening of the proceeding on the Commission’s own initiative on 19 February 1990.

132. It is appropriate to add that, in any event, a breach of the ‘reasonable time’ principle would warrant annulment of a decision adopted following an administrative procedure in a competition matter only where it also entailed a breach of the rights of defence of the undertakings concerned. Where it has not been established that the undue delay has adversely affected the ability of the undertakings concerned to defend themselves effectively, failure to observe the ‘reasonable time’ principle cannot affect the validity of the administrative procedure (see, to that effect, the judgment of this Court in PVC II , paragraph 43 above, paragraph 122).

133. In that regard, the applicant claims that it is difficult for it to defend itself against charges relating to facts alleged to have taken place at that time, since it is no longer able to call upon its employees who were active in the sector and the subsidiary concerned at the material time.

134. However, the Commission did not carry out any measure of investigation between the delivery of the judgment in Commission v Solvay , paragraph 37 above, and the adoption of the contested decision.

135. Furthermore, it is clear from the contested decision that that decision is based on the same grounds as those forming the basis of Decision 91/299, that the content of the two decisions is virtually identical and that the Commission did not take into account any new factor requiring the exercise of a right of defence.

136. In those circumstances, there has been no breach of the applicant’s rights of defence.

137. In the fifth place, as regards the judicial proceedings, it must be observed that, in the application, the applicant does not directly challenge the duration of the proceedings before this Court and then before the Court of Justice so far as Decision 91/299 is concerned.

138. In any event, it must be borne in mind that the general principle of Community law that everyone is entitled to a fair hearing, which is inspired by Article 6(1) of the ECHR, and in particular the right to legal process within a reasonable period, is applicable in the context of proceedings brought against a Commission decision imposing fines on an undertaking for infringement of competition law. The reasonableness of a period is to be appraised in the light of the circumstances specific to each case and, in particular, the importance of the case for the person concerned, its complexity and the conduct of the applicant and of the competent authorities. The list of criteria is not exhaustive and the assessment of the reasonableness of a period does not require a systematic examination of the circumstances of the case in the light of each of them, where the duration of the proceedings appears justified in the light of one of them. Thus, the complexity of the case may be deemed to justify a duration which is prima facie too long (see Joined Cases C‑403/04 P and C‑405/04 P Sumitomo Metal Industries and Nippon Steel v Commission [2007] ECR I‑729, paragraphs 115 to 117 and the case-law cited).

139. Furthermore, in Case C‑185/95 P Baustahlgewebe v Commission [1998] ECR I‑8417 the Court of Justice, after stating that this Court had ignored the requirements concerning completion within a reasonable time, held, for reasons of economy of procedure and in order to ensure an immediate and effective remedy regarding a procedural irregularity of that kind, that the plea alleging excessive duration of the proceedings was well founded for the purposes of setting aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it set the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant at ECU 3 million. In the absence of any indication that the length of the proceedings affected their outcome in any way, the Court held that that plea could not result in the judgment under appeal being set aside in its entirety, but that a sum of ECU 50 000 constituted reasonable satisfaction for the excessive duration of the proceedings, and therefore reduced the amount of the fine imposed on the undertaking concerned.

140. Consequently, in the absence of any indication that the length of the proceedings affected their outcome in any way, any exceeding of a reasonable time by the Community judicature in the present case, even on the assumption that it were established, would not in any way affect the legality of the contested decision.

141. It should further be noted that, in the application, the applicant expressly renounced the possibility of a reduction in the fine by way of compensation for the alleged breach of its right to be tried within a reasonable time. Nor did it claim damages.

142. Accordingly, the second part of the first plea must be rejected and, in consequence, the first plea must be rejected in its entirety.

Second plea: breach of essential procedural requirements with respect to the adoption and authentication of the contested decision

143. The second plea consists, essentially, of eight parts, alleging, first, breach of the principle of collegiality; second, breach of the principle of legal certainty; third, breach of the applicant’s right to be heard again; fourth, failure to consult the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions again; fifth, the irregular composition of the Advisory Committee; sixth, the use of documents seized in breach of Regulation No 17; seventh, breach of the right of access to the file; and, eighth, breach of the principles of impartiality, sound administration and proportionality.

144. The Court considers it appropriate to examine the seventh part of the second plea in the context of the sixth plea, alleging breach of the right of access to the file, after it has examined all the pleas relating to the substance of the case.

First part: breach of the principle of collegiality

– Arguments of the parties

145. The applicant observes that, according to the covering letter of 10 January 2001, signed by the Member of the Commission responsible for competition, the contested decision was adopted by the College of Commissioners on 13 December 2000.

146. However, it is apparent from the statements of the Commission’s spokesperson, reproduced in a press release issued by a press agency on 12 December 2000, that the decision to adopt Decision 91/299 again had already been taken at the latest on the day before the day on which the College of Commissioners met in order to deliberate.

147. In the applicant’s submission, in the absence of any indication that the College of Commissioners deliberated on a date before 12 December 2000, it must be inferred that the contested decision was adopted in breach of the principle of collegiality.

148. Furthermore, even on the assumption that the contested decision was in fact adopted by the College of Commissioners, it follows from the press release issued by a press agency on 12 December 2000 that the Commission had apparently decided to adopt a new decision with a content identical to that of Decision 91/299, on the ground that the applicant had never challenged the substance of the latter decision. The applicant contends that it had criticised the legal and factual assessment made by the Commission and also the principle and the amount of the fine. Consequently, the College of Commissioners was not correctly informed of the applicant’s position at the time when it decided to adopt the contested decision.

149. The applicant also requests the Court to order the Commission to produce all the internal documents relating to the adoption of the contested decision, and in particular the minutes of any meeting of the College of Commissioners during which the draft decision was discussed, and also the documents submitted to the College of Commissioners.

150. The Commission disputes the arguments put forward by applicant.

– Findings of the Court

151. In accordance with settled case-law, the principle of collegiality is based on the equal participation of the Commissioners in the adoption of decisions, from which it follows in particular that decisions should be the subject of collective deliberation and that all the members of the College of Commissioners should bear collective responsibility at the political level for all decisions adopted (Case C‑191/95 Commission v Germany [1998] ECR I‑5449, paragraph 39, and Case C‑1/00 Commission v France [2001] ECR I‑9989, paragraph 79).

152. Compliance with the principle of collegiality, and especially the need for decisions to be deliberated upon by the Commissioners together, must be of concern to the individuals affected by the legal consequences of such decisions, in the sense that they must be sure that those decisions were actually taken by the College of Commissioners and correspond exactly to its intention. This is particularly so, as here, in the case of acts, expressly described as decisions, which the Commission finds it necessary to adopt with regard to undertakings or associations of undertakings for the purpose of ensuring observance of the competition rules and by which it finds an infringement of those rules, issues directions to those undertakings and imposes pecuniary sanctions upon them ( Commission v BASF and Others , paragraph 82 above, paragraphs 64 and 65).

153. In the present case, the applicant relies on the fact that, according to a press release issued by a press agency on 12 December 2000, the Commission’s spokesperson announced that the Commission would adopt the same decision again on 13 December 2000.

154. However, even on the assumption that the Commission’s spokesperson did use the words to which the applicant refers, the mere fact that a press release issued by a private company mentions a statement which is not in any way official does not suffice to support the conclusion that the Commission breached the principle of collegiality. The College of Commissioners was not in any way bound by that statement and, at its meeting of 13 December 2000, it could equally have decided, following collective deliberation, not to adopt the contested decision.

155. It should further be noted that the Commission’s official press statement was issued on 13 December 2000.

156. Furthermore, even on the assumption that the Commission’s spokesperson did state that the applicant had never contested the substance of Decision 91/299, such an argument is ineffective. It follows from recital 199 to the contested decision that the Commission adopted a new decision the content of which was virtually identical to the content of Decision 91/299 on the ground that that decision had been annulled on account of purely procedural defects. Accordingly, the fact that the applicant challenged the substance of Decision 91/299 is irrelevant.

157. It follows from the foregoing that there is no need to order the Commission, in the context of the measures of organisation of procedure, to produce all the internal documents relating to the adoption of the contested decision.

158. The first part of the second plea must therefore be rejected.

Second part: breach of the principle of legal certainty

– Arguments of the parties

159. The applicant suggests that the formalities of authentication fixed by the Rules of Procedure of the Commission (OJ 1999 L 252, p. 41), which were applicable at the time of adoption of the contested decision, are not consistent with the requirements of Commission v BASF and Others , paragraph 82 above, paragraphs 73 to 76, and Commission v Solvay , paragraph 37 above, paragraphs 44 to 49.

160. It maintains that the first paragraph of Article 16 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, in force at the material time, prescribes no formality for authentication of the contested decision, which is not signed although it mentions the name of the Member of the Commission responsible for competition. In particular, there is no provision for the instruments adopted to be attached to the summary note at the time when it is drafted, so that ‘the authentication of one or other of those notes has no direct link with the instrument adopted’. In that regard, the first paragraph of Article 16 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission differs from Article 15 of the Council Decision of 5 June 2000 adopting the Council’s Rules of Procedure (OJ 2000 L 149, p. 21).

161. Accordingly, the Commission’s Rules of Procedure ignore the fundamental nature of the formalities of authentication and contravene the principle of legal certainty. The contested decision was therefore not validly authenticated.

162. The Commission disputes the arguments put forward by the applicant.

– Findings of the Court

163. The Court takes the view, as a preliminary point, that the applicant’s argument must be understood as constituting a plea that a provision of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission in force at the time of the adoption of the contested decision was illegal.

164. Such a plea of illegality must be held admissible.

165. According to the case-law, Article 241 EC must also extend to internal rules of an institution which, although they do not constitute the legal basis of the contested decision and do not produce effects similar to those of a regulation within the meaning of that article, determine the essential procedural requirements for adopting that decision and thus ensure legal certainty for those to whom it is addressed. Any addressee of a decision must be able indirectly to challenge the legality of the measure determining the formal validity of that decision, notwithstanding that the measure in question does not constitute the legal basis of the latter if it was not in a position to apply for the annulment of that measure before receiving notification of the contested decision. Consequently, those of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure which are designed to ensure the protection of individuals may be the subject-matter of a plea of illegality (judgment of this Court in PVC II , paragraph 43 above, paragraphs 286 and 287).

166. It must be borne in mind, moreover, that the plea of illegality must be limited to what is essential to the outcome of the dispute.

167. Article 241 EC is not intended to enable a party to contest the applicability of any measure of general application in support of any action whatsoever. The general measure claimed to be illegal must be applicable, directly or indirectly, to the issue with which the action is concerned and there must be a direct legal connection between the contested individual decision and the general measure in question (see the judgment of this Court in PVC II , paragraph 43 above, paragraphs 288 and 289 and the case-law cited).

168. In that regard, it must be borne in mind that the contested decision was authenticated under the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 16 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission. There is thus a direct legal connection between that decision and that article of the Rules of Procedure which the applicant claims to be unlawful. It follows that the first paragraph of Article 16 of the Rules of Procedure applicable at the time of adoption of the contested decision may be the subject-matter of a plea of illegality.

169. It is therefore appropriate to ascertain whether or not the formalities of authentication fixed by the Rules of Procedure of the Commission are consistent with the requirements of the principle of legal certainty.

170. In the present case, the reference text is the first paragraph of Article 16 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, in the version applicable at the time of adoption of the contested decision, which provides as follows:

‘Instruments adopted by the Commission in the course of a meeting shall be attached, in the authentic language or languages, in such a way that they cannot be separated, to a summary note prepared at the end of the meeting at which they were adopted. They shall be authenticated by the signatures of the President and the Secretary-General on the last page of the summary note.’

171. In the judgment of this Court in PVC II , paragraph 43 above, the Court examined the legality of the first paragraph of Article 16 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission of 17 February 1993 (OJ 1993 L 230, p. 15), which was drafted as follows:

‘Instruments adopted by the Commission in the course of a meeting … shall be annexed, in the authentic language or languages, to the minutes of the meeting at which they were adopted or at which note was taken of their adoption. They shall be authenticated by the signatures of the President and the Secretary-General on the first page of the minutes.’

172. In that judgment, the Court considered that the rules laid down in that provision constituted in themselves a sufficient guarantee for determining, in case of dispute, whether texts notified or published corresponded perfectly with the text adopted by the College and thus with the intention of their author. Since that text was annexed to the minutes, and the first page of the minutes was signed by the President and the Secretary-General, there was a link between those minutes and the documents which they covered which allowed certainty as to the exact content and form of the College’s decision. In that regard, in the absence of a finding by the Community judicature that an authority had not complied with its usual practice, an authority must be presumed to have acted in accordance with the applicable legislation. Therefore, the authentication provided for in accordance with the rules in the first paragraph of Article 16 of the Rules of Procedure must be regarded as lawful (judgment of this Court in PVC II , paragraph 43 above, paragraphs 302 to 304).

173. It must be held that the first paragraph of Article 16 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, in the version applicable at the time of adoption of the contested decision, prescribes a more formalistic procedure for authentication than that examined in the judgment of this Court in PVC II , paragraph 43 above.

174. Following the amendments, the two texts now differ as follows: instruments adopted in a meeting are no longer merely ‘annexed’ to the minutes, but are ‘attached … in such a way that they cannot be separated’; the word ‘minutes’ is replaced by ‘summary note’; the summary note is prepared ‘at the end of the meeting’; and, last, the signatures are no longer placed on ‘the first page of the minutes’ but on ‘the last page of the summary note’.

175. Taken together, those amendments reinforce the guarantees offered by the authentication procedure with a view to ensuring, in particular, compliance with the principle of legal certainty.

176. Accordingly, the first paragraph of Article 16 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission as applicable on the date of adoption of the contested decision is not vitiated by illegality.

177. In those circumstances, the second part of the second plea must be rejected.

Third part: breach of the applicant’s right to be heard again

– Arguments of the parties

178. The applicant acknowledges that at paragraphs 246 to 252 of the judgment of this Court in PVC II , paragraph 43 above, the Court considered that where a Commission decision is annulled on account of a procedural defect, a new hearing of the undertakings concerned is required before a new decision is adopted only to the extent to which the new decision contains new objections.

179. However, that solution cannot be transposed to the facts of the present case. First, the administrative procedure is vitiated by numerous defects owing to the Commission’s use of documents seized for a purpose other than that for which it was permitted to examine those documents and owing to the breach of the right of access to the file. Second, the contested decision adopts the analysis undertaken in Decision 91/297, which was annulled for other than purely formal reasons, and which was not adopted again.

180. Thus, the annulment of Decision 91/297 affected the validity of the measures preparatory to the contested decision. In Solvay I , paragraph 35 above, this Court held that the Commission’s complete refusal to disclose documents constituted a breach of the applicant’s right of access to the file. Furthermore, that procedural defect affects both the administrative procedure relating to the application of Article 82 EC and that concerning Article 81 EC. The Commission therefore ought to have reopened the procedure by granting the applicant full access to its file and then allowing it to submit all its written and oral observations on that matter.

181. Furthermore, because it limits the right to be heard to the sole possibility for the undertaking concerned to submit its observations on the objections raised against it, the interpretation adopted in the judgment of this Court in PVC II , paragraph 43 above, is incorrect in law. Any undertaking concerned is also entitled to be heard and to submit its observations on the principle, the appropriateness and the amount of the fines. The applicant refers to the case-law and asserts that the undertakings which are the potential addressees of a decision finding an infringement on their part and imposing a fine for such infringement must be given the opportunity to submit all their observations with respect to the fine at the stage of the administrative procedure. Owing to the time that has elapsed in the present case, the applicant contends that it would have had new observations to submit with respect to the limitation in time of the Commission’s power to impose fines on it and to the fact that a reasonable time had been exceeded, as well as to the amount of the fine.

182. The applicant maintains that, following the annulment of Decision 91/297, it ought, in particular, to have been heard on the internal coherence of the analysis made by the Commission, which presented the alleged infringements of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC as supporting each other, and on the validity of certain assertions in the contested decision concerning the existence of a cartel with ICI, which were taken directly from Decision 91/297 or participated in its philosophy, in breach of the presumption of innocence.

183. The Commission disputes the arguments put forward by the applicant.

– Findings of the Court

184. Where, following the annulment of a decision imposing sanctions on undertakings which have infringed Article 81(1) EC on account of a procedural defect concerning exclusively the procedures governing its final adoption by the College of Commissioners, the Commission adopts a new decision, having substantially the same content and based on the same objections, it is not required to conduct a new hearing of the undertakings concerned (see, to that effect, the judgment of this Court in PVC II , paragraph 43 above, paragraphs 246 to 253, upheld by the judgment of the Court of Justice in PVC II , paragraph 55 above, paragraphs 83 to 111).

185. As for the questions of law which may arise in the context of the application of Article 233 EC, such as those relating to the passage of time, the possibility of resuming proceedings, the access to the file required on resumption of the proceedings, the intervention of the hearing officer and the Advisory Committee and the possible implications of Article 20 of Regulation No 17, they do not render a n ew hearing necessary either, since they do not alter the substance of the objections, being at most amenable to subsequent judicial review (see, to that effect, the judgment of the Court of Justice in PVC II , paragraph 55 above, paragraph 93).

186. In the present case, the Commission repeated virtually the entire content of Decision 91/299. It supplemented the contested decision solely by a passage concerning the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

187. Admittedly, in the part of the contested decision devoted to the facts, the Commission also added a number of considerations originating in Decision 91/297, which was subsequently annulled by the judgment in Solvay I , paragraph 35 above. That part contains, inter alia, references to ICI.

188. However, Decision 91/299, in which the contested decision originated, made express reference to Decision 91/297 with respect to information on the product and the market for soda ash (see Part IB of the recitals to Decision 91/299). In the reply, the applicant acknowledges, moreover, that the passages from Decision 91/297 set out in the contested decision were an ‘integral part’ of Decision 91/299.

189. Furthermore, that information, which is purely factual, is not relevant to the infringements which the applicant was found to have committed in the present case. In this case, the conduct in which the applicant is found to have engaged is the abuse of a dominant position and not an agreement with another undertaking or concerted practices which had the effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition within the common market.

190. It must therefore be held that the contested decision and Decision 91/299 have substantially the same content and are based on the same grounds.

191. Consequently, in accordance with the case-law cited at paragraphs 184 and 185 above, in the present case the Commission was not required to hear the applicant again before adopting the contested decision.

192. Furthermore, as regards the arguments alleging the use of documents seized contrary to Regulation No 17 and breach of the right of access to the file, they form the subject-matter of autonomous complaints and will therefore be examined elsewhere.

193. It follows from the foregoing that the third part of the second plea must be rejected.

Fourth part: failure to consult the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Monopolies again

– Arguments of the parties

194. The applicant disputes the assessment made at paragraphs 254 to 257 of the judgment of this Court in PVC II , paragraph 43 above, according to which a fresh consultation of the Advisory Committee was not necessary in that case. In the applicant’s submission, contrary to the Court’s finding in that judgment, the obligation to consult the Advisory Committee does not follow from Article 1 of Commission Regulation No 99/63/EEC of 25 July 1963 on the hearings provided for in Article 19(1) and (2) of Regulation No 17 (OJ, English Special Edition 1963‑1964, p. 47), which merely regulates the chronological order to be taken by the procedure to be followed, but from Article 10 of Regulation No 17 in the version applicable at the material time. Furthermore, although consultation of the Advisory Committee is an important procedural guarantee, it pursues a different aim from the mere hearing of the undertaking concerned by the draft decision, as shown by the fact that where the undertaking concerned waives the right to a hearing the Commission is not relieved of its obligation to consult the Advisory Committee.

195. Consequently, in the present case, the Advisory Committee ought to have been consulted on the Commission’s preliminary draft of the contested decision which was drawn up following the judgment in Commission v Solvay , paragraph 37 above, and in particular on the question of compliance with the ‘reasonable time’ principle.

196. The Commission disputes the arguments put forward by the applicant.

– Findings of the Court

197. In the words of Article 10 of Regulation No 17, in the version applicable at the material time:

‘3. An Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Monopolies shall be consulted prior to the taking of any decision following upon a procedure under paragraph 1, and of any decision concerning the renewal, amendment or revocation of a decision pursuant to Article [81](3) [EC].

…

5. The consultation shall take place at a joint meeting convened by the Commission; such meeting shall be held not earlier than 14 days after dispatch of the notice convening it. The notice shall, in respect of each case to be examined, be accompanied by a summary of the case together with an indication of the most important documents, and a preliminary draft decision.’

198. Furthermore, Article 1 of Regulation No 99/63 provides:

‘Before consulting the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Monopolies, the Commission shall hold a hearing pursuant to Article 19(1) of Regulation No 17.’

199. According to consistent case-law, it follows from Article 1 of Regulation No 99/63 that the hearing of the undertakings concerned and the consultation of the Advisory Committee are necessary in the same situations (Joined Cases 46/87 and 227/88 Hoechst v Commission [1989] ECR 2859, paragraph 54, and judgment of the Court of Justice in PVC II , paragraph 55 above, paragraph 115).

200. Regulation No 99/63 was replaced by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2842/98 of 22 December 1998 on the hearing of parties in certain proceedings under Articles [81 EC] and [82 EC] (OJ 1998 L 354, p. 18), which was in force at the time of adoption of the contested decision and Article 2(1) of which is drafted in terms similar to those of Article 1 of Regulation No 99/63.

201. In the present case, the Court notes that, according to the terms of the contested decision, the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions was consulted prior to the adoption of Decision 91/299. The applicant does not dispute the existence or the regularity of that consultation.

202. Accordingly, in so far as the contested decision does not contain substantial amendments by comparison with Decision 91/299, the Commission, which was not required to hear the applicant again before adopting the contested decision, was not required to consult the Advisory Committee again either (see, to that effect, the judgment of the Court of Justice in PVC II , paragraph 55 above, paragraph 118).

203. Consequently, the fourth part of the second plea must be rejected.

Fifth part: irregular composition of the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions

– Arguments of the parties

204. The applicant submits that, after the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions had been consulted prior to the adoption of Decision 91/299 and of the contested decision, three States acceded to the Community on 1 January 1995. Since that Advisory Committee is composed of a representative of each Member State, it was not properly composed when the Commission prepared the draft which led to the adoption of the contested decision. The Commission ought therefore to have undertaken a fresh consultation of the properly composed Advisory Committee.

205. The Commission disputes the arguments put forward by the applicant.

– Findings of the Court

206. In the words of Article 10(4) of Regulation No 17, in the version applicable at the material time:

‘The Advisory Committee shall be composed of officials competent in the matter of restrictive practices and monopolies. Each Member State shall appoint an official to represent it who, if prevented from attending, may be replaced by another official.’

207. According to the case-law, a change in the composition of an institution does not affect the continuity of the institution itself, and its final or preparatory acts in principle retain their full effect (Case C‑331/88 Fedesa and Others [1990] ECR I‑4023, paragraph 36).

208. Nor is there any general principle of Community law requiring continuity in the composition of an administrative body handling a procedure which may lead to a fine (judgment of this Court in PVC II , paragraph 43 above, paragraphs 322 and 323).

209. It follows that the Commission was not required to consult the Advisory Committee again following the accession of three further States to the Community.

210. Accordingly, the fifth part of the second plea must be rejected.

Sixth part: use of documents seized in breach of Regulation No 17

– Arguments of the parties

211. The applicant observes that under Article 14(3) of Regulation No 17, in the version applicable at the material time, the Commission was able to order investigations at the undertakings’ premises by decision, which must specify the subject-matter and purpose of the investigation, and that, under Article 20(1) of that regulation, in the version applicable at the material time, information acquired as a result of the application of Article 14 could be used only for the purpose for which it was requested.

212. In the present case, in the applicant’s submission, the decision of 5 April 1989 ordering the investigation, on the basis of which the Commission carried out investigations at the applicant’s premises and the premises of its German and Spanish subsidiaries, referred only to Article 81 EC and ordered the six producers concerned to submit to an investigation relating, first, to their possible participation in agreements and/or concerted practices having the effect of partitioning national markets and collusion on the price of soda ash and, second, to the implementation of exclusive purchase arrangements with purchasers that might restrict or eliminate competition and reinforce the rigidity of the soda ash market in the Community.

213. Furthermore, it is clear from documents abandoned at the applicant’s premises by one of the officials involved in the investigation that the Commission had no advance information, no suspicion and no indication whatsoever of an infringement of Article 82 EC. In addition, the Commission was interested in relationships with customers in so far as the contracts with those customers might constitute a market-sharing agreement. It is apparent from an exchange of correspondence between the applicant and the Commission, moreover, that the Commission had on 22 May 1989 accepted the explicit reservation expressed by the applicant and aimed at prohibiting the use of the documents seized for a purpose other than investigations in the context of a proceeding pursuant to Article 81(1) EC.

214. The applicant further observes that on 21 June 1989 the Commission sent requests for information to the applicant and on 8 July 1989 to one of its German subsidiaries, namely DSW. Unlike the decision ordering the investigation, those requests referred to both Article 81 EC and Article 82 EC. The applicant asserts that the request sent to it also mentions that the Commission was examining the ‘compatibility with the competition rules of the contracts of supply with customers aimed at ensuring exclusivity of supply by means of discriminatory fidelity discounts’.

215. The applicant acknowledges that the Commission was entitled, first, to seize the documents which it discovered during the investigations in so far as they came within the scope of the decision ordering the investigation and, second, to initiate an investigation in order to ascertain the existence of a presumed infringement of Article 82 EC of which it became aware following the investigations which it carried out. On the other hand, in the applicant’s submission, the Commission was not entitled to use the seized documents in the context of the subsequent procedure aimed at establishing the existence of a presumed infringement of Article 82 EC, except as a basis for the decision to open that procedure. The applicant maintains, however, that the vast majority of the documents mentioned in the part of the statement of objections relating to the alleged abuse of a dominant position were apparently seized during the investigations carried at its and its subsidiaries’ premises. The Commission thus used the documents in question for a different purpose from that for which they were obtained. In doing so, the Commission breached the applicant’s rights of defence and the right to business secrecy, as safeguarded by Article 14(3) and Article 20(1) of Regulation No 17, in the version applicable at the material time.

216. The applicant infers that the documents annexed to the statement of objections and relied upon to support the objections based on Article 82 EC ought to have been disregarded, with the exception of the documents submitted by the applicant and its subsidiary in response to the requests for information sent to them after the investigations. Furthermore, owing to the passage of time, the applicant maintains that it was not in a position to determine, among the documents annexed to the statement of objections, those which had been seized at its premises and those which had been communicated to the Commission in response to the requests for information. Since each of the Commission’s objections is based on documents which ought to have been disregarded, the contested decision should therefore be annulled in its entirety. In addition, the Commission’s objections have as their basis, at least implicitly, certain inculpatory documents annexed to the statement of objections, although the Court is not in a position to appraise the precise influence which those documents had on the formulation of the objections set out in the contested decision. It follows that the Court is not in a position to review the legality of the contested decision and the lawfulness of the reasoning on which it is based.

217. The Commission disputes the arguments put forward by the applicant.

– Findings of the Court

218. It must be borne in mind, as a preliminary point, that both the purpose of Regulation No 17 and the list of powers conferred on the Commission’s officials by Article 14 thereof show that the scope of investigations may be very wide. In that regard, the right to enter any premises, land and means of transport of undertakings is of particular importance inasmuch as it is intended to permit the Commission to obtain evidence of infringements of the competition rules in the places in which such evidence is normally to be found, that is to say, on the business premises of undertakings. That right of access would serve no useful purpose if the Commission’s officials could do no more than ask for documents or files which they could identify precisely in advance. On the contrary, such a right implies the power to search for various items of information which are not already known or fully identified. Without such a power, it would be impossible for the Commission to obtain the information necessary to carry out the investigation if the undertakings concerned refused to cooperate or adopted an obstructive attitude. Although Article 14 of Regulation No 17 thus confers wide powers of investigation on the Commission, the exercise of those powers is subject to conditions serving to ensure that the rights of the undertakings concerned are respected. In that regard, it should be noted first that the Commission is required to specify the subject-matter and purpose of the investigation. That obligation is a fundamental requirement not merely in order to show that the investigation to be carried out on the premises of the undertakings concerned is justified but also to enable those undertakings to assess the scope of their duty to cooperate while at the same time safeguarding the rights of the defence ( Hoechst v Commission , paragraph 199 above, paragraphs 26 to 29).

219. It follows that the scope of the obligation to state the reasons on which decisions ordering investigations are based cannot be restricted on the basis of considerations concerning the effectiveness of the investigation. In that regard, it should be made clear that although the Commission is not required to communicate to the addressee of a decision ordering an investigation all the information at its disposal concerning the presumed infringements, or to make a precise legal analysis of those infringements, it must none the less clearly indicate the presumed facts which it intends to investigate ( Hoechst v Commission , paragraph 199 above, paragraph 41).

220. In the present case, it should be noted that the decision ordering the investigation refers solely to Article 81 EC.

221. However, since the Commission was not required to undertake a precise legal analysis of the infringements, the fact that the decision does not expressly refer to Article 82 EC cannot in itself lead to the conclusion that the