Eurofer ASBL v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2003-10-02
23.  Article 65(1) therefore applies to associations to the extent that their own activity or that of their member undertakings tends to produce the effects to which it refers (Case 67/63   Sorema   v   High Authority   [1964] ECR 151, at p. 162).
41.  According to the case-law relating to the tractor market (Case T-34/92   Fiatagri and New Holland Ford   v   Commission   [1994] ECR II-905, Case T-35/92   John Deere   v   Commission   [1994] ECR II-957, Case C-7/95 P   John Deere   v   Commission   [1998] ECR I-3111, and Case C-8/95 P   New Holland Ford   v   Commission   [1998] ECR I-3175), in which the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice first examined an agreement on the exchange of information in the context of the EC Treaty and the general findings of which can be applied to the ECSC Treaty, such an agreement is incompatible  with the rules on competition if it reduces or removes the degree of uncertainty as to the operation of the market in question with the result that competition between undertakings is restricted (see, in particular, Case C-7/95 P   John Deere  , cited above, paragraph 90).
42.  The criteria of coordination and cooperation necessary for determining the existence of a concerted practice, far from requiring an actual   "plan"   to have been worked out, are to be understood in the light of the concept inherent in the provisions of the EC and ECSC Treaties on competition, according to which each trader must determine independently the policy which he intends to adopt on the common market and the conditions which he intends to offer to his customers (see Case C-7/95 P   John Deere  , paragraph 86, and the case-law cited therein).
43.  While it is true that this requirement of independence does not deprive traders of the right to adapt themselves intelligently to the existing or anticipated conduct of their competitors, it does, however, strictly preclude any direct or indirect contact between such traders, the object or effect of which is to create conditions of competition which do not correspond to the normal conditions of the market in question, regard being had to the nature of the products or services offered, the size and number of the undertakings and the volume of the said market (Case C-7/95 P   John Deere  , paragraph 87, and the case-law cited therein).
46.  The findings made in paragraphs 186 to 195 of the judgment under appeal are findings of fact, which are not subject to review by the Court in appeal proceedings. As is clear from Article 32d(1) CS and Article 51 of the ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal lies on a point of law only. Therefore, the Court of First Instance has sole jurisdiction to find and appraise the relevant facts and to assess the evidence, except where those facts and that evidence have been distorted (see, to that effect, Case C-136/92 P   Commission   v   Brazzelli Lualdi and Others   [1994] ECR I-1981, paragraphs 49 and 66; Joined Cases C-238/99 P, C-244/99 P, C-245/99 P, C-247/99 P, C-250/99 P, C-251/99 P, C-252/99 P and C-254/99 P   Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij and Others   v   Commission   [2002] ECR I-8375, paragraph 194; and Case C-312/00 P   Commission   v   Camar and Tico   [2002] ECR I-11355, paragraph 69).