ACF Chemiefarma NV v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1970-07-15
18 THE PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE COMMISSION' S POWER TO IMPOSE FINES FOR INFRINGEMENT OF THE RULES ON COMPETITION DO NOT LAY DOWN ANY PERIOD OF LIMITATION .
19 IN ORDER TO FULFIL THEIR FUNCTION OF ENSURING LEGAL CERTAINTY LIMITATION PERIODS MUST BE FIXED IN ADVANCE .
20 THE FIXING OF THEIR DURATION AND THE DETAILED RULES FOR THEIR APPLICATIONS COME WITHIN THE POWERS OF THE COMMUNITY LEGISLATURE .
26 THE NOTICE OF COMPLAINTS FULFILS THIS REQUIREMENT SINCE IT SETS FORTH CLEARLY, ALBEIT SUCCINCTLY, THE ESSENTIAL FACTS ON WHICH THE COMMISSION RELIES .
47 THE APPLICANT FURTHER MAINTAINS THAT BY ITS FAILURE TO SUBMIT THE MINUTES TO IT IN DUTCH, THE COMMISSION INFRINGED THE PRINCIPLES CONTAINED IN ARTICLES 217 AND 248 OF THE EEC TREATY TOGETHER WITH THE PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 1 OF THE COUNCIL .
48 UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 3 OF REGULATION NO 1 OF THE COUNCIL, DOCUMENTS WHICH AN INSTITUTION OF THE COMMUNITY SENDS TO A PERSON SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF A MEMBER STATE SHALL BE DRAFTED IN THE LANGUAGE OF SUCH STATE .
49 THE FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE A DUTCH VERSION OF THE DRAFT MINUTES THUS CONSTITUTES AN IRREGULARITY IN DRAWING UP THAT DOCUMENT WHICH IS CAPABLE OF AFFECTING ITS VALIDITY .
50 IT IS CLEAR, HOWEVER, FROM THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD BY THE APPLICANT THAT IT WAS ABLE IN DUE TIME TO ACQUAINT ITSELF WITH THE CONTENTS OF THE MINUTES .
51 THE APPLICANT HAS NOT ALLEGED THAT THIS RESULTED IN THE MINUTES CONTAINING SUBSTANTIAL INACCURACIES OR OMISSIONS WITH REGARD TO IT .
52 IT MUST THEREFORE BE CONCLUDED THAT THE IRREGULARITY WHICH HAS BEEN FOUND DID NOT IN THIS CASE HAVE HARMFUL CONSEQUENCES CAPABLE OF VITIATING THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE .
78 WITH REGARD MORE PARTICULARLY TO DECISIONS IMPOSING A FINE, THE STATEMENT OF REASONS IS TO BE CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT IF IT INDICATES CLEARLY AND COHERENTLY THE CONSIDERATIONS OF FACT AND OF LAW ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE FINE HAS BEEN IMPOSED ON THE PARTIES CONCERNED, IN SUCH A WAY AS TO ACQUAINT BOTH THE LATTER AND THE COURT WITH THE ESSENTIAL FACTORS OF THE COMMISSION' S REASONING .
91 THE DECISION IS NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRED TO BE A REPLICA OF THE NOTICE OF COMPLAINTS .
112 THIS DOCUMENT THUS AMOUNTED TO THE FAITHFUL EXPRESSION OF THE JOINT INTENTION OF THE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT WITH REGARD TO THEIR CONDUCT IN THE COMMON MARKET .
173 THEIR OBJECT IS TO SUPPRESS ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES AND TO PREVENT ANY REFERENCE .
174 THIS OBJECT COULD NOT BE ADEQUATELY ATTAINED IF THE IMPOSITION OF A PENALTY WERE TO BE RESTRICTED TO CURRENT INFRINGEMENTS ALONE .
175 THE COMMISSION' S POWER TO IMPOSE PENALTIES IS IN NO WAY AFFECTED BY THE FACT THAT THE CONDUCT CONSTITUTING THE INFRINGEMENT HAS CEASED AND THAT IT CAN NO LONGER HAVE DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS .
176 FOR THE PURPOSE OF FIXING THE AMOUNT OF THE FINE, THE GRAVITY OF THE INFRINGEMENT IS TO BE APPRAISED BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT IN PARTICULAR THE NATURE OF THE RESTRICTIONS ON COMPETITION, THE NUMBER AND SIZE OF THE UNDERTAKINGS CONCERNED, THE RESPECTIVE PROPORTIONS OF THE MARKET CONTROLLED BY THEM WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AND THE SITUATION OF THE MARKET WHEN THE INFRINGEMENT WAS COMMITTED .
178 CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE DRAFT REGULATION ON WHICH THE PARLIAMENT WAS CONSULTED HAS NOT BEEN ALTERED .