13

The arguments submitted by the applicants in support of their request for access to the defendant's internal documents are summarized in paragraphs 49 to 63 of the order of 19 June 1996. It should be recalled, in particular, that in their replies to the letter of the Court of First Instance of 21 July 1995 (25 July 1995 in Case T-151/94; see the order of 19 June 1996, paragraph 8) nine of the 11 applicants identified on the list of internal documents supplied by the Commission those which they considered to be of particular importance and communication of which they request, not only on the basis of Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice but also in the light of the case-law of the Court of First Instance in the context of the EC Treaty, in particular the judgments in Case T-30/91 Solvay ν Commission [1995] ECR II-1775 and Case T-36/91 ICI ν Commission [1995] ECR II-1847. Most of the applicants referred expressly, in order to support their request for communication of the documents in question, either to the various pleas on which they rely in support of their action for annulment or to certain new considerations resulting from their consultation of the list of the documents in the Commission's internal file, which was communicated to them during the proceedings (see the order of 19 June 1996, paragraph 63). The request relates essentially to the documents concerning: (a) the possible participation of certain officials from the Directorate-General for Industry (DG III), and even from other Directorates-General of the Commission, in establishing and administering certain mechanisms identified in the contested decision, that is to say Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of 16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted practices engaged in by European producers of beams (OJ 1994 L 116, p. 1, hereinafter ‘the Decision’), as agreements or practices restricting competition, and more particularly in the ‘exchanges of confidential information’ and the ‘harmonization of extras’, or at least the knowledge which they had or should have had thereof, according to 8 of the 11 applicants; such documents are relevant in the light in particular of the pleas or arguments of 8 of the 11 applicants relating to breach of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty and of the general principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and estoppel (see the application in ARB ED, pp. 5, 12, 44 to 56, 60, 65 and 66; the application in Cockerill-Sambre, pp. 5, 7, 37 to 47, 51, 57 and 58; the application in Thyssen, points 46 to 54 and 89 to 92; the application in Unimétal, pp. 43 to 52 and 60 to 61; the application in Preussag, points 367 to 397, 482, 484 and 485; the application in British Steel, points 89 to 137 and the 3rd, 6th, 12th and 24th submissions; the application in Aristrain, the 7th submission and point 273; the application in Ensidesa, point 68; the observations of the applicants in ARBED, Cockerill-Sambre, Thyssen, Unimétal, Preussag, British Steel, Aristrain and Ensidesa in reply to the letter from the Court of First Instance of 21 July 1995; as regards the harmonization of extras, see in particular the application in ARBED, pp. 22 and 23; the application in Cockerill-Sambre, pp. 15 and 16; the application in British Steel, 11th submission); (b) the internal investigation conducted on the matter by the Hearing Officer following the administrative hearing on 11, 12, 13 and 14 January 1993 (see point 312 of the Decision); it is claimed that the documents are relevant, in particular in the light of the pleas and arguments relating to breach of the rights of the defence during the administrative investigation (see the application in Thyssen, points 21 to 28; the application in Unimétal, pp. 13 to 15; the application in Preussag, points 501 to 506; the application in British Steel, fifth submission; the observations of the applicant in British Steel in reply to the letter from the Court of First Instance of 21 July 1995); (c) relations between the Commission and the Scandinavian national authorities or beams producers, documents which are said to be capable of explaining why those producers were largely able to escape the heavy penalties imposed on the applicants even though the Decision acknowledges that they participated in at least one of the alleged infringements; in that connection some of the applicants referred to statements made to the Hearing Officer by Scandinavian undertakings to the effect that they had been encouraged by their government and by the Directorate-General for External Economic Relations (DG I) to take part in the meetings of the Eurofer/Scandinavia Group (see also paragraph 43 of the order of 19 June 1996); apart from the reasons already set out above regarding the knowledge the Commission is said to have had of the practices criticized in the Decision, the documents are also claimed to be relevant, in particular in the light of their pleas and arguments relating to breach of the general principle of equal treatment (see the application in Aristrain, ninth plea, points 369 to 371; the observations of the applicants in ARBED, Cockerill-Samhre, Thyssen, Unimétal and Preussag in reply to the letter of the Court of First Instance of 21 July 1995); (d) the Commission's analysis of the economic effects of the infringements; these documents are claimed to be relevant in particular in the light of the pleas and arguments relating to infringement of Article 65 of the Treaty owing to the absence of a proper analysis of those effects (see the application in Preussag, point 619; the application in British Steel, 2nd, 7th and 17th submissions; the application in Aristrain, eighth plea; the observations of the applicants in British Steel and Aristrain in response to the letter from the Court of First Instance of 21 July 1995); (e) the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Decision and the determination of the general level of fine imposed on the applicants; these documents are claimed to be relevant in particular in the light of the pleas and arguments relating to abuse of procedure or misuse of powers (see the application in Thyssen, point 145; the application in Unimétal, pp. 53 and 54; the application in British Steel, 27th submission; the application in Aristrain, points 49 to 51 and the fifth plea, points 155 to 172; the observations of the applicant in Aristrain in reply to the letter from the Court of First Instance of 21 July 1995); (f) the way in which the fines imposed on the various undertakings were calculated; it is claimed that these documents are relevant in particular in the light of the pleas and arguments relating to infringement of Article 65(5) of the Treaty, the duty to state reasons and the principles of equal treatment and proportionality (see the application in NMH, pp. 45 to 47; the application in Thyssen, point 140; the application in Unimétal, pp. 56 and 58 to 60; the application in Preussag, points 614 to 619; the application in British Steel, 16th to 27th submissions; the application in Aristrain, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th pleas; the application in Ensidesa, pp. 53 to 59; the observations of the applicants in Thyssen, Unimétal, Krupp Hoesch, Preussag, British Steel, Ensidesa and Aństrain in reply to the letter from the Court of First Instance of 21 July 1995); (g) the phase of the final adoption by the defendant of the Decision in its various language versions and the possible infringement on that occasion of essential procedural requirements, of which the applicants claim to have found evidence on reading the list of documents in the defendant's internal file (see the observations of the applicants in ARBED, Cockerill-Sambre, Thyssen, Unimétal, Krupp Hoesch, Preussag and British Steel in reply to the letter from the Court of First Instance of 21 July 1995).