CELEX: 61999CC0198
Language: en
Date: 2002-09-26 00:00:00
Title: Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl delivered on 26 September 2002. # Empresa Nacional Siderúrgica SA (Ensidesa) v Commission of the European Communities. # Appeal - Agreements and concerted practices - European producers of beams. # Case C-198/99 P.

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERALSTIX HACKL delivered on 26 September 2002  (1)
         Case C-198/99 P Empresa Nacional Siderúrgica SA   vCommission of the European Communities 
            ((Appeal – Competition – Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty – Normal competition – Adoption of a decision by the Commission – Fine in ecus – Turnover reference year))
            
      
         
        I ─ Introduction
      
      1.  The present case is an appeal brought against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance on 11 March 1999 in Case
      T-157/94 (
      the judgment under appeal). 
      
         			(2)
         		
      2.  Reference is made to the judgment under appeal for the historical background to relations between the steel industry and the
      Commission from 1970 to 1990, and in particular the rules adopted to deal with the manifest crisis and Commission Decision
      No 2448/88/ECSC of 19 July 1988 introducing a surveillance system for certain products of undertakings in the steel industry
      (
      Decision No 2448/88). 
      
         			(3)
         		 The surveillance system established pursuant to the said Decision expired on 30 June 1990 and was replaced by an individual
      and voluntary information scheme. 
      
         			(4)
         		
      3.  On 16 February 1994 the Commission adopted against 17 European steel undertakings and one of their trade associations  
      Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC ... relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements
      and concerted practices engaged in by European producers of beams 
      
         			(5)
         		 (hereinafter  
      the Decision). The parties to which the Decision was addressed had, in the Commission's view, breached the competition law of the European
      Coal and Steel Community by establishing, in an anti-competitive manner, systems for the exchange of information and engaging
      in price-fixing and market-sharing. The Commission imposed fines on 14 of the undertakings. In the case of Empresa Nacional
      Siderúrgica SA (Ensidesa) (hereinafter  
      the appellant) the Commission imposed a fine of ECU 4 000 000.
      
      4.  Several of the undertakings concerned, including the appellant, together with the trade association, challenged the Decision
      before the Court of First Instance. The Court of First Instance ultimately reduced the fine to EUR 3 350 000 and dismissed
      the remainder of the action.
      
      5.  On 26 May 1999 the appellant lodged with the Court Registry an appeal against that judgment.
       II ─ Forms of order sought and grounds of appeal
      
      6.  In its appeal, the appellant claims that the Court should:
      (1) set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance in Case T-157/94 in so far as that judgment fixes the fine
      imposed on the appellant at EUR 3 350 000, dismisses the remainder of the appellant's action and orders the appellant to bear
      its own costs and to pay three-quarters of the Commission's costs; 
      (i) alternatively, set aside in part the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance for the reasons given in this pleading
      and reduce the fine imposed on it;  
      
      
      
      (2) order the Commission, in both instances, to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and those of the present appeal.
      The Commission contends that the Court should: 
      (1) dismiss the appeal; 
      
      (2) order the appellant to pay the costs of the proceedings. 
      
      
      
      
      
      7.  According to its statement of appeal, the appellant invokes the following  
       grounds of appeal  First   ground of appeal:Breach of Community law in erring in law in its appraisal of the infringement of essential formal provisions committed when
      the Commission Decision was adopted. Second  ground of appeal:Breach of Community law in erring in law in its appraisal of the appellant's practices the subject of complaint in relation
      to Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty. Third  ground of appeal:Breach of Community law because the Court of First Instance did not annul Article 1 of the Decision on the grounds that it
      did not specify the duration of the infringement involving price-fixing. Fourth  ground of appeal:Breach of Community law in erring in law in its appraisal of the arrangement to share the French market. Fifth  ground of appeal:Breach of Community law as a result of the Court of First Instance exceeding its powers of review and infringing Ensidesa's
      rights of defence. Sixth  ground of appeal:Breach of Community law in upholding the validity of converting turnover into ecus and in upholding the validity of taking
      into account the turnover for the final year of the infringement.Summary of the grounds of appeal and their component parts according to the essential issues of law involved
      
      8.  The submissions relating to the individual grounds of appeal and their component parts indicate that the appellant is alleging
      several breaches of the ECSC Treaty. Summarised according to the issues of law raised, the appellant is in essence arguing
      that the Court of First Instance was in breach of  
       Community law  in the judgment under appeal in that it:
      
      
      ─
         erred in law in assuming that the Decision was  
         formally valid, even though the Decision had not been adopted in the proper manner (
         first ground of appeal);  
      
      
      
      ─
         exceeded its jurisdiction to carry out a review under the first paragraph of Article 33(1) of the ECSC Treaty (
         fifth ground of appeal);  
      
      
      
      ─
         erred in law in assuming that the Decision was  
         substantially valid, even though 
      
      
      
      ─
         the practices complained of in the Decision could not have had a detrimental effect on  
         normal competition within the meaning of Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty (
         second ground of appeal); 
      
      
      
      ─
         the Decision did not contain adequate substantiation in relation to the duration of the agreements to fix prices (
         third ground of appeal); 
      
      
      
      ─
         the sharing of the French market was based on an error in law (
         fourth ground of appeal); 
      
      
      
      ─
         erred in law in its assessment of the  
         fine (
         sixth ground of appeal).  
      
      
      
      9.  The examination which follows will base itself around this summary. The grounds of appeal put forward by the appellant, their
      component parts and arguments and the Commission's contentions will be set out under these individual points.
      
      10.  The grounds of appeal in the present proceedings correspond, in part, to the substance of the grounds of appeal or parts of
      the grounds of appeal put forward in Case C-194/99 P  
       Thyssen Stahl  v  
       Commission . 
      
         			(6)
         		 My Opinion in that case is also being delivered today. Where the content of the submission is the same I will refer in this
      Opinion to the appraisal that I have undertaken in my Opinion on Case C-94/99 P.
       III ─ Examination of the case
      
      
      
      A ─
      The ground of appeal alleging a legally defective assessment of the formal validity of the Decision (first ground of appeal)1. The quorum when the Decision was adopted by the CommissionSubmissions of the partiesAppraisal2. The question of the substantive correspondence between the versions of the Decision as notified and as adoptedSubmissions of the partiesAppraisal3. The question of the proper adoption of the Decision by the CommissionSubmissions of the partiesAppraisal 
      11.  The  
       first  ground of appeal consists of three parts. In the first, the appellant challenges the assumption made by Court of First Instance
      that, at the time of adoption of the Decision by the Commission, the necessary quorum was present. In this second and third
      parts the appellant takes issue with the alleged failure by the Court of First Instance to hold that there was an infringement
      of the formal provisions governing the authentication of the Decision and with the alleged lack of correspondence between
      the versions of the Decision as notified and as adopted.
      
      
      12.  In the first part of the first ground of appeal the appellant submits that the Court of First Instance misconstrued the minutes
      of the session of the College of Members of the Commission on 16 February 1994 at which the Decision was adopted. The Court
      of First Instance had assumed that the Decision had been adopted by the requisite number of Commission Members on the basis
      of a patently unsound interpretation of the minutes in question, without appraising all of the evidence tendered by the appellant.
      
      13.  The judgment under appeal states that page 2 of the minutes of the aforementioned session of the Commission on 16 February
      1994  
      shows that nine Members were present during the Commission's deliberations whereas, according to page 40 of the minutes of that
      session, two Cabinet heads and one Cabinet member attended the session  
      in the absence of the Commission Members, which indicates that three Commissioners were not present when the Decision was adopted in the afternoon.
      
      14.  The Court of Justice had also refused to allow the appellant's application for evidence to be examined in the form of the
      diaries of the Commission Members in order to establish which Members actually attended the session when the Decision was
      adopted. In doing so, the Court of First Instance had infringed the appellant's right under Article 24 of the ECSC Statute
      of the Court of Justice that it should be convinced of the validity of the procedure followed when the Decision was adopted.
      The Court has expressly ruled on such a right. 
      
         			(7)
         		
      15.  Under Article 24 of the ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, therefore, the Court should require the Commission to produce
      the Commission Members' diaries and other relevant documentation.
      
      16.  The  
       Commission  takes the view, firstly, that this ground of appeal is inadmissible as it is for the Court of First Instance alone to appraise
      the facts and the value to be put on the evidence submitted to it.
      
      17.  The Commission also considers the application for production of the diaries to be inadmissible as this is not a measure that
      can be the subject of an application in appeal proceedings. Article 118 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice,
      which specifically applies to appeals, refers to Article 43 et seq. and Articles 55 to 90, 93, 95 to 100 and 102 of those
      Rules but clearly omits Articles 45 to 54, which come under the chapter on measures of inquiry.
      
      18.  Even if the Court of Justice should find the ground of appeal admissible, the Commission takes the view that it is unfounded.
      The Court of First Instance properly took into account the list on page 2 of the minutes of the session, the purpose of which
      was to record precisely which Commission Members were present at or absent from the session in question. It argues that the
      appellant is also misconstruing page 40 of the minutes. As stated by the Court of First Instance, it does not follow from
      the details given there that the three Commission members in question were absent when point XXV was discussed.
      
      
      19.  Since the arguments put forward essentially correspond to those presented by the appellant  
       Thyssen Stahl  in Case C-194/99 P, I refer, in relation to the grounds on which the first part of the first ground of appeal should be dismissed
      as inadmissible, to paragraph 52 et seq. of the Opinion that I am delivering today in the aforementioned case. Those grounds
      apply  
       mutatis mutandis .
      
      20.  The first part of the  
       first  ground of appeal, challenging the assumption by the Court of First Instance that there was the necessary quorum when the
      Commission adopted the Decision, must therefore be dismissed on the ground that it is  
       inadmissible . 
      
         			(8)
         		
      
      21.  In the second part of the first ground of appeal the  
       appellant  takes issue with paragraph 135 of the judgment under appeal by arguing that, in its view, the Court of First Instance erred
      in finding that the notified and adopted versions did correspond.
      
      22.  It considers that, in taking the view that the notified version of the Decision need not necessarily correspond to the adopted
      version, the Court of First Instance wrongly applied the case-law 
      
         			(9)
         		 cited by the Court of First Instance itself, according to which a lack of formal correspondence between the version of the
      Decision as adopted and the version notified to the parties must result in its annulment.
      
      23.  The  
       Commission  considers this ground of appeal to be inadmissible because, in stating that there was no substantive difference between the
      various versions of the Decision, the Court of First Instance was just establishing an issue of fact.
      
      24.  Furthermore, the Commission continues, the ground of appeal does not have any legal foundation and is based on a misunderstanding
      of paragraph 135 of the judgment under appeal. The Court of First Instance did not state that the Commission can notify a
      text to the parties that does not correspond to the text adopted, but that considerations such as non-consecutive pagination
      or different typeface did not adversely affect the formal and intellectual elements of such documentation.
      
      
      25.  Paragraph 135 of the judgment under appeal with which the appellant takes issue relates to the alleged discrepancy between
      the version of the Decision before the Commission at the time of adoption and the version notified to the appellant.
      
      26.  The purely substantive correspondence between the version of the Decision notified to the appellant and the version before
      the Commission at the time of adoption is a determination of fact and not a question of law.
      
      27.  The second part of the  
       first  ground of appeal, claiming that it was wrongly found that there was no discrepancy between the versions of the Decision as
      adopted and as notified, must therefore be dismissed as  
       inadmissible .
      
      
      28.  In the third part of the first ground of appeal the  
       appellant  takes issue with paragraphs 143 to 147 of the judgment under appeal relating to compliance with Article 16(1) of the Rules
      of Procedure of the Commission of 17 February 1993 
      
         			(10)
         		 then applicable. It argues that, in deeming the procedure followed by the Commission satisfactory, the Court of First Instance
      misconstrued the significance attributable to Article 16(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission according to which
      adopted Decisions are to be attached to the minutes of the meeting at which they are adopted.
      
      29.  Furthermore, the appellant continues, in paragraph 147 of the judgment under appeal the Court of First Instance erred in its
      appraisal of the evidence as to whether the President and Secretary-General of the Commission authenticated the wording of
      the Decision as notified to the parties.
      
      30.  The  
       Commission  considers this dual argument to be inadmissible because the appellant is objecting to a finding of fact or appraisal of evidence,
      both of which are matters which come within the sole purview of the Court of First Instance.
      
      31.  Nor is the ground of appeal substantiated. Paragraphs 145 and 146 of the judgment under appeal should also be taken into account;
      the appellant has not tendered any proof that there was a substantive difference between the versions of the Decision.
      
      32.  The Commission indicates in relation to paragraph 147 of the judgment under appeal that Article 16(1) of the Rules of Procedure
      of the Commission does not provide for authentication of the Decision notified to the parties, but just authentication of
      the version referred to in the minutes of the meeting.
      
      
      33.  Since the arguments put forward essentially correspond to those presented by the appellant  
       Thyssen Stahl  in Case C-194/99 P, I refer, in relation to the grounds on which the third part of the first ground of appeal should be dismissed
      as inadmissible, to paragraph 66 et seq. of the Opinion that I am delivering today in the aforementioned case. Those grounds
      apply  
       mutatis mutandis .
      
      34.  The third part of the first ground of appeal, which challenges the alleged failure to take account of the improper authentication
      of the Commission's Decision, must therefore be dismissed as being  
       inadmissible .
      
      
      
      
      
      B ─
      The ground of appeal alleging that the Court of First Instance exceeded its jurisdiction (fifth ground of appeal)Submissions of the partiesAppraisal 
      35.  The  
       appellant  takes issue with paragraph 332 et seq. of the judgment under appeal in which the Court of First Instance considered the separateness
      under competition law of the information exchange system within the Poutrelles Committee.
      
      36.  The appellant relies on the fact that, in its reply to a written question put by the Court of First Instance, the Commission
      stated that the information exchange system the subject of the complaint against the undertakings did not constitute a separate
      breach of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty, but formed part of wider infringements. In the oral procedure the Commission had
      also specifically stated that it took the view that the Court's  
      tractor 
      
         			(11)
         		 case-law did not apply to the information exchange system the subject of these proceedings.
      
      37.  In paragraph 339 of the judgment under appeal the Court of First Instance nevertheless came to the conclusion that the information
      exchange system had been considered in the Decision to be a separate infringement and that therefore the arguments put forward
      by the Commission in its reply of 19 January 1998 and during the oral procedure should be rejected in so far as the aim was
      to change that finding of law.
      
      38.  The appellant considers that the wording of the Commission's Decision has been altered in the judgment under appeal and its
      substance therefore changed as a result of the Decision being ascribed an inference that it did not contain. By proceeding
      in this manner the Court of First Instance failed in its duty to check the validity of a legal measure to which penalties
      were attached, contrary to its own ruling in the judgment on the flat-glass decision. 
      
         			(12)
         		 It should have annulled the fine that had been wrongly imposed for a separate infringement that, by the Commission's own
      admission, had not taken place.
      
      39.  The  
       Commission  considers this ground of appeal to be inadmissible because it is made for the first time before the Court and differs from
      the grounds claimed at first instance.
      
      40.  The Commission also claims that the ground of appeal is unfounded. The Court of First Instance did not alter the wording or
      change the content of the Decision in any way; it simply rejected the statements made by the Commission in writing and during
      the oral procedure.
      
      
      41.  Since the arguments put forward essentially correspond to those presented by the appellant  
       Thyssen Stahl  in Case C-194/99 P, I refer, in relation to the grounds on which the fifth ground of appeal should be dismissed as unfounded,
      to paragraph 89 et seq. of the Opinion that I am delivering today in the aforementioned case. Those grounds apply mutatis
      mutandis.
      
      42.  The fifth ground of appeal, alleging that the Court of First Instance exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 33(1) of the
      ECSC Treaty, must therefore be dismissed as being unfounded.
      
      
      
      
      
      C ─
      1. Interpretation of the term  
      concerted practices and  
      normal competition under Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty (
      second ground of appeal) The grounds of appeal alleging that the assessment of the substantive legality of the Decision was defective in law
       Submissions of the parties
      
      43.  The  
       appellant  takes issue with paragraph 215 et seq. of the judgment under appeal, arguing that the Court of First Instance construed the
      terms  
      agreement and  
      concerted practices in Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty in connection with price-fixing agreements in the same way as the corresponding terms in
      Article 85 of the EC Treaty without taking into consideration that the facts that were the subject of the Decision should
      have been appraised in accordance with Article 46 et seq. and Articles 60 and 65 of the ECSC Treaty.
      
      44.  Normal competition under the ECSC Treaty, the appellant continues, does not correspond to that competition protected under the EC Treaty; it
      is imperfect competition on an oligopolistic market.
      
      45.  Article 60 of the ECSC Treaty introduces an element of coordination between undertakings in giving rise to virtually automatic
      adaptation to published prices. The Court of First Instance therefore erred in appraising the appellant's practices under
      Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty without taking Article 60 into consideration.
      
      46.  In paragraph 230 of the judgment under appeal the Court of First Instance also erred in assuming that the Commission was not
      obliged to demonstrate what adverse effect on competition had resulted from the practices of which the appellant was accused.
      This is despite the fact that, in paragraph 222 of the Decision, the Commission itself had stated that the practices had had
      a far from negligible effect upon competition.
      
      47.  The grounds of the judgment under appeal are also inconsistent because it is stated in paragraph 517 that  
      the Commission ... overestimated the economic effects of the established agreements on price-fixing in relation to competition,
      as would have prevailed ... in the absence of such infringements in view of the more favourable economy and the latitude afforded
      to the undertakings for general discussions on price forecasts with other undertakings and DG III.
      
      48.  The appellant also takes issue with paragraph 404 et seq. of the judgment under appeal. In paragraph 416 of the judgment under
      appeal the Court of First Instance, after examining various items of evidence, came to the conclusion that the officials at
      DG III  
      [could] not establish that ... the information on prices was based on agreements between the undertakings.
      
      49.  The appellant perceives the reasoning of the Court of First Instance as patent distortion of the documentary evidence and
      testimony of witnesses regarding DG III's knowledge of the exchange of information on prices. That reasoning enabled the Court
      of First Instance to reject the proof submitted and come to the conclusion that the undertakings had not proven that DG III
      was involved or, at least, had not established what precise knowledge the Commission had had of the content of the meetings.
      
      50.  The  
       Commission  takes the view, first of all, that this ground of appeal merely repeats the arguments put forward in the Court of First Instance;
      it must therefore be inadmissible.
      
      51.  Even if the ground of appeal were admissible, however, it should be dismissed as unfounded because the Court of First Instance
      did not err in its reasoning in paragraph 238 et seq. and paragraph 245 et seq. The appellant's conduct the subject of complaint
      in relation to price-fixing and market-sharing, in particular, does constitute  
      agreements and  
      concerted practices within the meaning of Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty. Such conduct is not mentioned in Article 60 of the ECSC Treaty and,
      if it were to be considered lawful, would deprive Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty of any effect.
      
      52.  As regards the effect on competition, the Commission considers that, as Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty prohibits agreements
      and practices  
      tending ... to prevent, restrict or distort normal competition ..., the Court of First Instance correctly found that it was not necessary to demonstrate that the cartel the subject of the
      complaint had had adverse effects on competition.
      
      53.  The ground of appeal is also inadmissible in any event in so far as it takes issue with the question of DG III's knowledge
      of conduct the subject of a later complaint. This is, in fact, purely a criticism of the appraisal of evidence and not an
      argument for distortion of evidence. The appellant does not specify the alleged distortion of evidence although it is for
      the appellant to show where and how the Court of First Instance wrongly appraised the evidence.
       Appraisal
      
      54.  According to the appellant's arguments in relation to the interpretation by the Court of First Instance of the terms  
      agreements ... and ... concerted practices and  
      normal competition contained in Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty, the  
       second  ground of appeal consists of two parts made up of the following complaints:
      
      
      ─
         The Court of First Instance failed to take any, or any proper, account of the lawful disruptions which form part of  
         normal competition.  
      
      
      
      ─
         The Court of First Instance failed to take cognisance of the fact that  
         agreements and  
         concerted practices could only be in breach of competition law under the ECSC Treaty if market effects are proven; however, it did not examine
         this point.  
      
      
      
      55.  It is to be inferred from the first part of the  
       second   ground of appeal that the appellant clearly classes the oligopolistic structure of the ECSC markets taken for granted in the
      ECSC Treaty, the publication of price lists under Article 60 the ECSC Treaty and the knowledge and conduct of DG III, based
      on Article 47 of the ECSC Treaty, as lawful disruptions supposedly covered by the term  
      normal competition.
      
      56.  Since the arguments put forward essentially correspond to those presented by the appellant  
       Thyssen Stahl   in Case C-194/99 P, I refer, in relation to the grounds on which the first part of the  
       second  ground of appeal should be dismissed as unfounded, to paragraph 135 et seq. of the Opinion that I am delivering today in
      the aforementioned case. Those grounds apply  
       mutatis mutandis .
      
      57.  In the second part of the  
       second  ground of appeal the appellant claims that  
      agreements and  
      concerted practices in Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty ─ unlike the parallel terms (
      agreements and  
      concerted practices) in Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) ─ still require the existence of evidence of adverse effects on the market
      even where the objective of the agreements and concerted practices the subject of complaint was to influence the market in
      an anti-competitive manner.
      
      58.  The appellant essentially bases its argument on its interpretation of the scope of lawful disruptions allegedly covered by
      the term  
      normal competition, which ─ as already stated ─ must be rejected for reasons of principle. Since the reasoning contained in paragraph 230 of
      the judgment under appeal also complies with established case-law of the European Court of Justice on Article 85 of the EC
      Treaty (now Article 81 EC) 
      
         			(13)
         		 and since there is no apparent reason why it should not also apply to Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty, this argument by
      the appellant must also be dismissed as unfounded in this respect.
      
      59.  Finally, as far as the alleged objection to paragraph 517 of the judgment under appeal is concerned, the appellant is here
      comparing the reasoning in the judgment under appeal on the factual aspect of the practices the subject of complaint under
      Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty with the grounds on which the Court of First Instance reduced the amount of the fine under
      Article 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty within the scope of its unlimited power of review.
      
      60.  Since the arguments put forward essentially correspond to those presented by the appellant  
       Thyssen Stahl  AG in Case C-194/99 P, I refer, in relation to the grounds on which the  
       second  part of the second ground of appeal should be dismissed as unfounded, to paragraph 158 et seq. of the Opinion that I am delivering
      today in the aforementioned case. Those grounds apply  
       mutatis mutandis .
      
      61.  The  
       second  ground of appeal, alleging a legally defective assessment of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty with regard to the terms  
      normal competition and  
      agreements ... and ... concerted practices, must therefore be dismissed in its entirety as  
       unfounded .
      
      2.  The alleged defective reasoning in the judgment under appeal in relation to the duration of the price-fixing agreements (
       third  ground of appeal)
       Submissions of the parties
      
      62.  The  
       appellant  takes issue here with paragraph 259 of the judgment under appeal.
      
      63.  It argues that, in paragraph 259 of the judgment, the Court of First Instance stated that paragraphs 227 to 237 of the Decision
      did not contain sufficient evidence of the whole duration of the infringement consisting of price-fixing. The Court of First
      Instance nevertheless relied on paragraph 118 et seq. of the Decision and stated in paragraph 263 of the judgment under appeal
      that the Commission's finding in paragraph 221 of the Decision, that the agreements and concerted practices were to be considered
      continuing collusion, could not be criticised.
      
      64.  According to the case-law of the Court of First Instance, however, the Commission is obliged to prove the individual existence
      and duration of every single infringement in its decisions. 
      
         			(14)
         		
      65.  The  
       Commission  considers that, by alluding only to paragraph 259 of the judgment under appeal, the appellant is manipulating the wording
      of the judgment.
      
      66.  The Commission contends that the ground of appeal is also unfounded. Although the Court of First Instance did state in paragraph
      259 of the judgment under appeal that paragraphs 227 to 237 of the Decision did not enable the duration of the infringements
      to be established, its conclusion was based on other points in the Decision and documentation referred to ─ that is to say,
      on paragraph 118 et seq. of the Decision that was taken into account in paragraph 260 et seq. of the judgment under appeal.
       Appraisal
      
      67.  It is apparent that, in its appeal against paragraph 259, the appellant fails to take cognisance of the fact that the paragraphs
      of the Decision referred to as grounds in paragraph 260 et seq. of the judgment under appeal come to the same conclusion.
      
      68.  It should not be inferred from the case-law of the Court of First Instance on which the appellant relies that there is a duty,
      in cases of continued anti-competitive practices, to always appraise a Commission Decision to establish whether it contains
      separate proof of the individual involvement of every single undertaking concerned. 
      
         			(15)
         		
      69.  Since, in this case, neither the judgment under appeal nor the appellant's pleadings show what involvement, if any, the appellant
      was specifically denying, the accusation that the reasoning in the judgment under appeal is defective in this respect cannot
      be levelled at the Court of First Instance.
      
      70.  The  
       third  ground of appeal, taking issue with the alleged defective reasoning in relation to the duration of the price-fixing agreements,
      must therefore be dismissed as  
       unfounded .
      
      3.  The alleged defective grounds for the judgment under appeal in relation to the sharing of the French market (
       fourth  ground of appeal)
       Submissions of the parties
      
      71.  The  
       appellant  takes issue with paragraph 296 et seq. of the judgment under appeal.
      
      72.  The Court of First Instance did not accept its statement that the quantity exported in the fourth quarter of 1989 had been
      anything other than exceptional and had indeed been in line with its normal exports; it assumed that this did not constitute
      proof of non-participation in the agreement, the objective of which had been to stabilise the participants' deliveries at
      their customary levels.
      
      73.  The appellant considers that the judgment under appeal failed to apply the principles established by the European Court of
      Justice in the CRAM and  
       Rheinzink  v  
       Commission  judgment 
      
         			(16)
         		 to the present case even though the Decision should also have been annulled here because there could have been a different
      explanation for the facts the subject of complaint to that given in the Decision.
      
      74.  In the opinion of the  
       Commission  this ground of appeal is inadmissible because it is merely repeating the objections raised at first instance and is a question
      of appraisal of fact.
       Appraisal
      
      75.  As is apparent from paragraph 296 et seq. of the judgment under appeal, the appellant has already claimed in the proceedings
      before the Court of First Instance that there was an alternative explanation for its practices in relation to deliveries on
      the French market during the fourth quarter of 1989, which were considered in paragraph 70 of the Decision to have been anti-competitive
      market-sharing.
      
      76.  The Court of First Instance addressed this issue in paragraph 270 of the judgment under appeal and found that the alternative
      explanation offered did not render the appellant's involvement in market-sharing in respect of France sufficiently uncertain.
      The Court of First Instance made express reference here to the case-law of the Court in  
       CRAM and Rheinzink . 
      
         			(17)
         		
      77.  It must therefore be stated that, although the Court of First Instance examined the principles developed in the case-law cited,
      it declined to apply them in this particular case because it took the view that they could not invalidate the Commission's
      circumstantial evidence. This was an evaluation based on an appraisal of fact that as such ─ subject to review of potential
      distortion ─ cannot form the subject of appeal proceedings.
      
      78.  The  
       fourth  ground of appeal, taking issue with the defective assessment of the agreement to share the French market, must therefore
      be dismissed as
       inadmissible .
      
      
      D ─
         The ground of appeal relating to the fine (sixth ground of appeal)
      
      
      
      79.  The  
       sixth  ground of appeal consists of two parts. In the first part the appellant takes issue with the assumption by the Court of First
      Instance that the conversion of the fine in the Decision into ecus was lawful. In the second part the appellant takes issue
      with the fact that the Court of First Instance calculated the fine on the basis of turnover in the final year of the infringements.
      
      1. The conversion of the fine into ecus at the rate of exchange in the final year of the infringements
       Submissions of the parties
      
      80.  The  
       appellant  takes issue with paragraph 471 of the judgment under appeal, in which the conversion of the fine into ecus at the rate of
      exchange for the final year of the infringements is found to be lawful.
      
      81.  The Court of First Instance, the appellant argues, failed to take cognisance of the fact that the Commission acted unlawfully
      because, instead of levying the fine in pesetas and then converting it into ecus at the official exchange rate in force on
      the day before the Decision was adopted, it used for the purposes of the fine the appellant's relevant turnover at the rate
      of exchange in force in the year 1990, the final year of the period of infringement, converted it into ecus and incorporated
      that ecu figure into the Decision in 1994 without making any change.
      
      82.  In view of the difference in the rate of exchange for the peseta and the ecu between the year 1990 and the day before the
      Decision was adopted, in 1994, this practice led, the appellant claims, to Ensidesa being unjustifiably fined an extra ECU
      800 000.
      
      83.  Relying on the judgment of the Court of Justice in the  
       Lührs  case, 
      
         			(18)
         		 according to which the exchange rate which is the less onerous for the taxpayer concerned should be applied, the appellant
      considers that the Court of First Instance has committed a violation of the principle of natural justice.
      
      84.  The  
       Commission  combines its comments on both parts of this ground of appeal and considers the ground of appeal to be inadmissible in its
      entirety as it is simply repeating the grounds claimed in the Court of First Instance.
      
      85.  The Commission also considers the ground of appeal unfounded. Application of the principle of natural justice, as construed
      by the appellant, would lead to the arbitrary determination of fines in each individual case and would be in violation of
      the principle of legal certainty, whereby it must be possible to establish with a degree of certainty what fine can be levied
      for a particular line of conduct.
      
      86.  Application of the rate of exchange and turnover for the final year in which the infringement took place, the Commission continues,
      ensures uniform procedure for all the accused and is an option that best reflects the profits made by the offenders. No other
      solution would enable the practices the subject of complaint to be reasonably avenged in relation to the period in which they
      took place and the consequences resulting from them.
       Appraisal
      
      87.  In paragraph 87 et seq. of its judgment in the  
       Sarrió  
      
         			(19)
         		 case, concerning the problem of conversion of a fine into ecus at the rate of exchange in the final year of the infringements
      (although based on infringements of competition rules within the scope of the EC Treaty, that is to say in relation to Council
      Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962 
      
         			(20)
         		) the Court ruled: In the present case, the appellant has not shown how the Court of First Instance, in not calling in question in the Commission's
      method of calculation based on the turnover in the last full year of the infringement, infringed Regulation No 17 or general
      principles of law.First, Regulation No 17 does not prohibit the use of the ecu in order to fix the fines. Next, ... the Commission used one
      and the same method of calculating the fines imposed on undertakings for having participated in the same infringement and
      that method enabled it to assess the size and economic power of each undertaking and the scope of the infringement committed,
      in light of the economic reality as it appeared at the time the infringement was committed.Lastly, as regards, in particular, monetary fluctuations, they are an element of chance which may produce advantages and disadvantages
      which the undertakings have to deal with regularly in the course of their business activities and whose very existence is
      not such as to render inappropriate the amount of a fine lawfully fixed by reference to the gravity of the infringement and
      the turnover achieved during the last year of the period over which it was committed. In any event, the maximum amount of
      the fine, determined by virtue of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 by reference to turnover in the business year preceding
      the adoption of the Decision, limits the possible harmful consequences of monetary fluctuations.
      
      88.  As it is impossible to see why these principles should not apply, or should apply differently, within the scope of application
      of Article 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty relevant here, the appellant's argument must be rejected on the same grounds.
      
      89.  Although in the  
       Sarrió  case the Court did not expressly refer to the case-law in the  
       Lührs  case cited by the appellant, it is obvious that the principle stated there in connection with tax on exports  
      thus the appropriate answer is that in view of the uncertainties inherent in Regulation No 348/76, natural justice demands
      that for the purpose of converting the tax on exports into national currency the exchange rate which at the material time
      was less onerous for the taxpayer concerned should be applied 
      
         			(21)
         		 cannot apply because of the different area of interests concerned in breaches of the prohibition of cartels within the Communities.
      
      90.  The first part of the  
       sixth  ground of appeal, taking issue with the alleged defective assessment in law of the imposition of the fine in ecus, must therefore
      be dismissed as  
       unfounded .
      
      2. The calculation of the fine on the basis of turnover in the final year of the period of infringement
       Submissions of the parties
      
      91.  The appellant takes issue here with paragraph 474 of the judgment under appeal. This paragraph countenances taking as the
      basis the turnover reached in the final year of the period of the infringement even though, when calculating the fines, the
      Commission should have taken as its basis the last turnover before the adoption of the Decision for which consolidated balance
      sheets were available to it, being the turnover for 1992 in the appellant's case. It argues that to take the year 1990 as
      the criterion is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and natural justice.
      
      92.  The appellant again relies in its reasoning on the judgment in the  
       Lührs  case, 
      
         			(22)
         		 which ruled that in the event of uncertainty the basis of calculation more favourable to the taxpayer concerned should be
      selected, which in the appellant's case would have signified an obligation to base the calculation of the fine on the last
      turnover figure available before adoption of the Decision.
      
      93.  Nor would the judgment of the Court in the  
       Sarrió  
      
         			(23)
         		 case be inconsistent with that principle as the problem of legal uncertainty was not dealt with there in that way.
      
      94.  The  
       Commission  has combined its comments on both parts of this ground of appeal. I therefore refer to paragraph 84 et seq. of this Opinion.
       Appraisal
      
      95.  In paragraph 85 et seq. of the judgment in the  
       Sarrió  
      
         			(24)
         		 case, regarding the problem of calculation of a fine on the basis of turnover in the final year of the period of infringement
      (although on the basis of infringements of competition rules within the scope of the EC Treaty, that is to say with regard
      to Regulation No 17) the Court stated: As to the legality of taking into account two reference years, one in order to determine the maximum amount of the fine, the
      other in order to assess the size and economic power of the undertaking at the time of the infringement, it should be pointed
      out, first, that the ceiling set by Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 in respect of fines amounting to more than one million
      units of account and which corresponds to  
      10% of the turnover in the preceding business year relates ... to the business year preceding the date of the decision. It is, moreover, logical to refer to that business year
      when determining the maximum amount of the fine which can be imposed on an undertaking that has infringed the competition
      rules.Second, when the size and economic strength of an undertaking at the time of the infringements are being assessed, it is necessary
      to refer to the turnover achieved at that time ... In the contrary case, the respective size of the undertakings which took
      part in the infringement would be distorted by account being taken of extrinsic and uncertain factors, such as the changes
      in the value of national currencies during the subsequent period (see Case C-49/92 P  
       Commission  v  
       Anic Partecipazioni  [1999] ECR I-4125, paragraph 165).
      
      96.  As it is impossible to see why these principles should not apply, or should apply differently, within the scope of application
      of Article 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty relevant here, the appellant's argument must be rejected on the same grounds.
      
      97.  Nor is this inconsistent with the aspect of legal uncertainty claimed by the appellant in connection with the principle of
      equal treatment.
      
      98.  The judgment in the  
       Lührs  
      
         			(25)
         		 case cited by the appellant cannot also be taken as grounds for this case because that was not a case concerning the calculation
      of a fine for breach of the prohibition on cartels within the Communities but a case that related to the calculation of a
      tax on exports, which covers a different area of interest. In the  
       Lührs  judgment the Court referred to legal uncertainty from the tax legitimacy aspect. In instances of infringements of the law
      on cartels within the Communities it is necessary ─ as the Court ruled in the  
       Sarrió  case ─ and particularly in order to achieve comparability, to take as the year of reference for the purposes of calculating
      the fine the last year of the period of infringement.
      
      99.  Furthermore, the Commission does not have that freedom of choice apparently assumed by the appellant in relation to two possible
      years of reference according to the judgment in the  
       Sarrió  case. The  
      preceding business year within the meaning of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 mentioned there patently only applies to that amount of turnover
      that is relevant to the ceiling on the fine (10% of the turnover). This provision, by its very objective (to avoid a disproportionate
      financial burden), permits of an interpretation whereby what is meant here is the business year preceding the adoption of
      the Decision. However, this is to be distinguished from the turnover on which the original amount of the fine is calculated.
      For the reasons of comparability given by the Court in the  
       Sarrió  case, that must be calculated on the turnover in the final year of the period of infringement.
      
      100.  All in all, therefore, it cannot be assumed that, when determining the year of reference for the turnover that is to form
      the basis of calculation of a fine, the Commission is always obliged to select the year of reference that, in terms of the
      size of the fine, favours the individual undertakings involved in an infringement of competition.
      
      101.  The second part of the  
       sixth  ground of appeal, taking issue with the alleged legally defective assessment of the fine on the basis of the turnover in
      the final business year of the period of infringement, must therefore also be dismissed as  
       unfounded .
      
      102.  The  
       sixth  ground of appeal, taking issue with the assessment of the fine by the Court of First Instance, must therefore be dismissed
      in its entirety as  
       unfounded .
        IV ─ Conclusion
      
      103.  In the light of the foregoing, I accordingly propose that the Court:
      
      
      ─
         dismiss the appeal;  
      
      
      
      ─
         order the appellant to bear the costs of the proceedings. 
      
      
      
       1 –
         
           Original language: German.
      
      2 –
         
         Case T-157/94  
             Ensidesa  v  
             Commission  [1999] ECR II-707.
         
      
      3 –
         
         OJ 1988 L 212, p. 1.
      
      4 –
         
         See paragraph 33 of the judgment in Case T-141/94  
             Thyssen Stahl  v  
             Commission  [1999] ECR II-347.
         
      
      5 –
         
         OJ 1994 L 116, p. 1.
      
      6 –
         
         [2003] ECR I-10821.
      
      7 –
         
         Case C-137/92 P  
             Commission  v  
             BASF and Others  [1994] ECR I-2555.
         
      
      8 –
         
         Since there is no further need to answer the question whether the Court is obliged to ask the Commission for documents to
            prove whether no not there was the necessary quorum when the Decision was adopted, it should just be established here for
            the sake of completeness that the provisions correctly cited by the Commission preclude measures of inquiry being conducted
            by the Court in appeal proceedings.
         
      
      9 –
         
         See the judgment cited in footnote 7.
      
      10 –
         
         OJ 1993 L 230, p. 15.
      
      11 –
         
         Case C-7/95 P  
             John Deere  v  
             Commission  [1998] ECR I-3111.
         
      
      12 –
         
         Case T-68/89  
             SIV and Others  v  
             Commission  [1992] ECR II-1403, amongst other authorities.
         
      
      13 –
         
         Case 56/65  
             Société Technique Miniere  v  
             Maschinenbau Ulm  [1966] ECR 235; Case C-49/92 P  
             Commission  v  
             Anic Partecipazioni  [1999] ECR I-4125. 
         
      
      14 –
         
         Case T-11/89  
             Shell  v  
             Commission  [1992] ECR II-757, paragraph 190, and Case T-295/94  
             Buchmann  v  
             Commission  [1998] ECR II-813.
         
      
      15 –
         
         In the  
             Shell  case criticism was levelled at the evidence actually taken by the Commission, which raised considerable doubts about the
            participation of an undertaking in all of the infringements of competition law commited during a continuing course of conduct;
            in the  
             Buchmann  case the applicant had argued the Commission had immediately concluded from the proven participation in price-fixing agreements
            and arrangements on machine downtime that it had also participated in market-sharing (both judgments cited in footnote 14).
            
         
      
      16 –
         
         Joined Cases 29/83 and 30/83 [1984] ECR 1679.
      
      17 –
         
         Cited in footnote 16.
      
      18 –
         
         Case 78/77  
             Lührs  [1978] ECR 169.
         
      
      19 –
         
         Case C-291/98 P  
             Sarrió  v  
             Commission  [2000] ECR I-9991. The judgment relates to the  Commission Decision of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under Article
            85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 ─ Cartonboard) (OJ 1994 L 243, p. 1).
         
      
      20 –
         
         First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87).
      
      21 –
         
         Cited in footnote 18, paragraph 13.
      
      22 –
         
         Cited in footnote 18.
      
      23 –
         
         Judgment cited in footnote 19.
      
      24 –
         
         Cited in footnote 19.
      
      25 –
         
         Cited in footnote 18.